that's the public market of ideas at work for you

What stuff? Using this logic, why should anything be off-limits to the "public market of ideas"? e.g. libel should be perfectly acceptable speech — that way it can be exposed and refuted!

This is a particularly insidious point of view because it frames its own line between acceptable and unacceptable speech as some sort of natural law, when really it's just as arbitrary as any other line.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't draw lines between speech we're okay with and speech we're not. Literally every human being on the planet does it! This is why I don't like "marketplace of ideas" arguments: the person making them always always always still thinks some speech should be somehow punished in the market.

Libel has a pretty narrow definition and clearly leaves the realm of opinions and ideas to a different realm of willfully lying about someone with the intent to harm them personally.

The fact that we remove libel protections from public figures including politicians already makes this an extremely narrow subset of speech.

Arguing that this is just another example of an arbitrary line within a grey area seems like a rhetorical device to overemphasize the subjectivity of speech protections in pursuit of making them no longer able to be consistently protected.

The fact that it's okay to libel a public figure (a fact I didn't know until now!) further underscores how arbitrary it is. At what level of renown are you a "public figure"? How is it measured?

We should be as stringent as possible in legal exceptions to freedom of speech. But there's no moral obligation to protect any given speech from social consequences (such as getting kicked from your web host). No one is actually a free speech absolutist.

This is where speech becomes a kind of action: misleading people in business, directing people to do harmful or illegal things. It’s actually pretty interesting how consistent the common thread is ... incitement to illegal acts or misrepresentation which results in tangible harm.

Therefore the United States libel definition is most directly relevant to the overall point here.

I've never met an actual free speech absolutist. I've just met people who tolerate certain forms of hate speech.

I would argue that it's more important.

> Phillip DeFranco

Edit regarding your edit: Complaining about downvotes is cringe inducing.

It's a good idea to be wary of the sneaking-in of bad ideas by packaging them with good ideas. In 2019, this applies to even some of the most reprehensible ones. (For example: Politics through intimidation and violent assault.) Ideologies and movements aren't monoliths. The bad parts of them can be teased apart and criticized, without making you an opponent of all of the overarching ideas and principles. Anyone who tries to sell you on the "all or nothing" idea is (perhaps unwittingly) engaging in this packaging of bad ideas.

downvote within 15 seconds of posting ... you are speedy in your thoughtlessness.

Here is the pattern that I often see around that: 2 or 3 rapid, thoughtless downvotes, followed by more upvotes. Be courageous, and take the long view. (Also, we're not supposed to talk about this meta stuff around here, according to the guidelines, but I'm giving you a heads up.)

Of course no one mentioned perhaps the most important reason for non censorship of ideas.

The censors and public at large can be wrong. Imagine living in a society where racism was the norm and the censors did not allow speech that argued for the equality of races. Instead of "hate speech" they called it "unnatural speech" or some such twisted label.

In fact, our society could be very wrong about some popular ideas. In fact, I don't think we are new or different than many societies that proceeded us -- we have been here before. We can't be so myopic that we are the generation that has discovered all the ideal points of view. Let views stand up to the test.

Also censorship is fear based. Buck up. Take on the challenge. Make sure the positive voices are heard. Don't protect adults with "safe spaces" where they will never be challenged. You are just setting them up for a fall later.

A computer owned by the government is a different story since government property is paid for by the tax-payer, so it should not be able to act unilaterally in matters of removing content.

I'll add that I don't regard patents, regulation, or "inconsistent enforcement of existing laws" as a reason why a company or individual should forfeit the freedom to determine what they host on a computer they own.

We don't have a "marketplace of ideas" for alternatives for the conservation of mass. We teach kids one thing in school and move on. Why do we behave differently for other topics?

The reasons racism is wrong needs to be constantly reposted -- we forget and repeat our mistakes too often. That is why we have holocaust museums. In fact the dangers of racism become more obvious when you let the racists speak! Let them. Teach your children from them. Show them the effect.

People just take it as an axiom that forcing ideas underground makes things worse but that seems like an idea that requires some support.

Racism is a security vulnerability in our brains. These ideas aren't propagated through reason. They are propagated by exploiting cognitive loopholes. Sitting down with your kid and showing them a whole bunch of fascist propaganda and then having a rational discussion with them isn't going to have the effect you want.

    "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," according to Justice Louis Brandeis's 
     famous case for freedom of thought and expression. If an idea really is false, 
     only by examining it openly can we determine that it is false. At that point we 
     will be in a better position to convince others that it is false than if we had 
     let it fester in private, since our very avoidance of the issue serves as a 
     tacit acknowledgment that it may be true.

     https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dangerous07/dangerous07_index.html

What of ideas that we have already determined to be false? Genocidal racism is garbage. It has been known to be garbage for a long time. Yet it persists. Must we continue having public discussions about the merits of genocidal racism? Can we stop in 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years?

    Defamation against private individual (including libel and slander)
    Child pornography
    Blackmail
    Incitement to imminent violence
    Solicitations to commit crimes

I genuinely do have trouble unifying my instinct that nazi propaganda, for example, should be censored, against my understanding that what constitutes "solicitation to commit crimes" is relative to what a society considers "good" or "bad," which is (somewhat) arbitrary.

Take your list as an example. Any action that is damaging to the State could be considered Criminal - perhaps something as simple as developing good cryptography, for example. Some things are crimes that shouldn't be - smoking marijuana, an example. Simply saying "solicitations to commit crimes should be censored" thus doesn't jive with me.

I think the main problem is the human heart ... but that is a different discussion.

What if it's against a group of individuals?

Claims like this--and these are the tip of the iceberg--target groups of people and affect every individual within. It's like passive libel/slander that every member of the group has to contend with.

It can even affect people outside the group. I don't think I know of a straight man under 30 who isn't afraid someone will think they're gay if they do the wrong thing. And more than a few cisgender women get run out of bathrooms because they present in a more masculine way.

You can't simply turn your emotions on and off unless you are a sociopath.

If someone calls me a "fag", it will bother me whether I pretend it does or not. I'll be offended and it will probably play back in my head for a bit. I can try to let it not bother me, but it probably will at least a little.

"Words can't hurt me" is a fine personal mantra/goal/ideal but you can't apply it to everybody in every case.