I think its worth asking here:

Why do we value free speech?

Is it because we would like a variety of ideas to be heard, even if some of them are unsavory in the current social landscape? That we do better when we are open to a more diverse range of influences? If this is the case, I think we can't simply think of free speech in an active sense. I think the case could be made that the language of these accounts is designed to devalue the voices of particular people, thereby limiting their speech.

I don't really have a solution here. I'm made extremely uncomfortable by this, but my current line of thought is that if an actor initiates the limitation on another's right to expression, then they are the one whose speech should be limited. Think of it sort of like free speech self-defense.

Kind of tangential, but this Mark Ames piece on censorship is really good: https://pando.com/2015/02/04/the-geometry-of-censorship-and-...

[edit] just took a closer look and I'm not really familiar with those accts aside from RV, so I can't really speak on harassment here

> Why do we value free speech?

Because free (i.e. unrestricted) speech is anti-fragile.

When speech is restricted to just the conventional wisdom (or really: what those in power are okay with), arguments no longer win the day and our ideas and beliefs about the world become fragile, vulnerable to catastrophic disruption by those who see reality more clearly.

History has shown that any restriction on speech ("book burning") is a slippery slope, so if we want the anti-fragile properties—and we really, really do—that means accepting some speech that is plainly wrong or offensive.

I think the idea that speech is anti-fragile works to a point, but is ultimately a bit naive about the way that power structures and language works. Its entirely possible to limit someone else's ability to communicate simply by communicating. Speaking isn't the same thing as being heard. I'm not talking about speech that is merely offensive here. I'm talking about speech that is specifically designed to dehumanize and devalue others. Obviously the line is murky here, and I'm not saying I have a perfect system worked out by any means, but I think the investigation is worthwhile.

The "your mean speech makes others unhappy and less likely to speak freely" is not new, one of the great things about American-style free speech is that it protects against the weaponization of offense, and limits damage of moral fads.

Thats really not what I'm talking about. I understand the push back against "SJWs" and those in the language policing community. That said, telling someone to get in the oven, which Ricky Vaughn and others are known to do, is a deliberate intimidation tactic designed to dehumanize and silence others and I don't think it needs to be protected.

Does this have the potential for abuse? Sure. In the same way that I think Zimmerman's self-defense argument was a problem, this could be implemented poorly. That doesn't mean I think it isn't an idea worth pursuing if we could adjudicate it justly.

Let's see the alt-right turn up to peacefully protest and enact change through hard fought legislation and community action then.

They don't need anyone's help. Let their movement fail and maybe they'll protect yours next time.

I don't agree with conservatives on much, but we can sure agree on this:

Stop giving "participation awards" to people who clearly have lost.

You mean like SJW crazies "peacefully protest" any event that tries to dispute what they are selling by trying to get it banned, sabotage it, block people from attending, disrupt it?