> this was before all the modern insanity about “free speech is bad because some people say bad/offensive things”.)

To be totally fair, the idea "free speech is bad because some people say bad things" is older than the mind of man can remember.

> To be totally fair, the idea "free speech is bad because some people say bad things" is older than the mind of man can remember.

Yes, it's just that we've only recently been allowed to talk about it openly.

This crosses into political flamewar and personal attack, which you can't do on HN, regardless of how right you are or how righteous your cause.

Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here? We'd appreciate it.

Impartial view here, not entirely sure where I fall on free speech:

You've concluded that the absolute morality expressed by public consciousness should be the arbiter of publicly expressible speech. Maybe the next thing that gets people killed is not allowing public discourse to challenge socially accepted, morally unacceptable beliefs.

> what arguments exactly do you feel could not legally be expressed in a modern first-world democracy, that actually should be expressed?

Many people use “free speech” to describe more than what is covered by the First Amendment in the USA. For instance, freedom from retaliation, by being fired from your job. According to that view, entities other than the government can engage in suppressing free speech.

I read the argument and then re-read it. Went through few odd stages of amusement and I still disagree. Defending Nazi right to express free speech is more necessary now than ever given that people apparently forgot what an important right it is.

As for the argument that, opinion gets people killed, I can only reply with the following.

Opinions don't kill people. People kill people. It is important to know the difference.

I totally agree, nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people. There is no reason people should be unable to build their own weapons and bombs. And don't even start with the WMD slippery slope.

More seriously, limiting speech should not be necessary in a good society were people don't let such stuff spread. But that doesn't seem to be how humans work. The marketplace of ideas does not necessarily prevent bad outcomes. And pretending that a root cause analysis for a genocide doesn't include speech as a vital segment in the chain leading to that atrocity seems illusory to me.

So yes, having reasonable rules doesn't seem that wrong to me. It certainly comes with all the usual problems of gov/regulation. I'm kind of fine with what we have here in Germany. Not that its perfect... but it kind of reminds me of that saying about aerospace rules... they are written in blood.

It is a good argument. It sounds reasonable. But having 'reasonable rules' is a vague statement. It is something akin to me saying in a corporate meeting 'it is all about balance'.It is and it conveniently can be applied to anything.

For the record, I personally dislike German approach despite understanding its genesis.

I can't really speak for aerospace rules, but I am not certain they say that much about speech.

edit. I just remembered. Internet has all manner of rather dangerous information out there. Materials may be highly difficult to procure, but knowledge is still at your fingertips.