Freedom of speech has never meant an unlimited freedom to say anything, anywhere, to anyone without consequence. Every communicative order establishes boundaries between permissible expression and utterances understood as threat, coercion, defamation, incitement or other forms of actionable conduct; paradoxically, however, freedom of speech becomes politically meaningful precisely because speech possesses the capacity to offend, disturb, humiliate and provoke. This article examines that paradox from the perspective of Online Media Ecology and argues that digital media have introduced a historically distinctive transformation: offence has become not merely a possible consequence of communication but a potentially profitable commodity. Beginning with the bounded licence of the trickster, court jester, carnival fool and stand-up comedian, the article traces the exceptional social spaces in which linguistic transgression could be temporarily permitted and contained. It then examines the limits of this licence through modern conflicts surrounding offensive expression, including Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell and the lethal attack on Charlie Hebdo, treating these cases not as evidence that offence necessarily produces violence but as extreme demonstrations of the capacity of symbolic conflict to acquire material consequences. The article subsequently turns to contemporary digital media, where traditional boundaries separating performer from spectator, stage from audience and private reaction from public performance increasingly collapse. Extending Marshall McLuhan’s movement from “job taking” towards “role playing,” it proposes that the Global Village is mutating into a Global Stage in which visibility itself becomes social currency. Drawing upon Peter Ayolov’s work on the attention economy, manufactured dissent, rage bait, anger and the commodification of outrage, the article argues that contemporary media systems can profit from selecting provocative speech, amplifying offence, circulating antagonistic reactions and preventing grievance from dissipating. The classical political question of where society should establish the limits of free speech is therefore joined by another: who profits from continually approaching, contesting and moving those limits? This transformation is conceptualised as an emerging Economy of Grievance in which offence becomes content, reaction becomes engagement, and unresolved antagonism acquires economic value.