I would/do have a problem with that idea being supressed. The path to defeating a truly bad idea is to publicly flog it, not pretend it doesn't exist.

No. It takes more time to rebut ridiculous ideas than to generate them. At some point along the spectrum of consensus, the burden shifts to the person propagating the idea; otherwise, all we're doing is wasting time feeding the trolls.

Trolls can be ignored. Bad ideas can be expressed in good faith.

In neither case are we obligated to tolerate them.

Depends what you mean by "we" "obligated" and "tolerate". Users certainly aren't legally or morally obligated to engage with content they find objectionable. HN, reddit, youtube etc. can legally remove whatever content they see fit, but I'd argue, being largely platforms for expression, they're morally obligated to tolerate objectionable speech.

Do you have any arguments that would be persuasive to people who don't believe that HN is morally obligated to host spirited defenses of child pornography? ("No" is a fine answer!)

I'm probably not capable of arguing for the idea of free speech any better than has been done before, no.

The reason we need a blanket rule against state prohibition of speech is that human beings cannot be trusted to decide which speech is off limits. It's obvious to you that white supremacy makes the list, but it is just as obvious to religious fundamentalists that heretical speech should make the list (we're talking about your eternal soul, after all).

There is no workable rule that can't be exploited or extended. And it's not enough to invoke the Slippery Slope fallacy in response, because even if we could all decide today on the perfect list of topics to prohibit (we can't, but even if I grant you that absurdity), politics and governance absolutely does operate incrementally and no line would long remain static, especially a line that's so easily moved as one defining acceptable speech.

It's just simply not a workable idea. The only thing you can do is make a rule that prohibits the prohibition of speech and then let people fight it out in public, over and over and over and over, just like you and I are doing here.

And to be clear: YouTube (and other private actors) banning speech they don't like is a totally legitimate part of that conversation.

I do not support laws banning white supremacist speech, so I’m not sure what your point is here.

Your framing of Ely's justification for the 1st Amendment did not make it clear that you wouldn't support banning speech you find particularly egregious. I'm happy to have been wrong.

Ely wouldn't either. The point is that 1A protects the political process, not a natural right we have to express ourselves; thus the distinction between government and social suppression of speech.

That's not the operative distinction most of us are working with, nor do I think there's much demand for an alternative theory of the case. The conventional distinction, which is more or less a distinction between positive and negative rights, is working quite nicely, sufficiently explains the motivation for the rule, and isn't in search of improvement.

I think you just wrote "my preferred argument disagrees with yours, and there's no reason for us to consider any other".

I think you more or less wrote, "I don't really like the idea of Free Speech, but I've been told my whole life that it's important, so I'm looking for a way to resolve this dissonance."

The reason I'm not in search of better arguments is that I don't have any dissonance to resolve. (I realize that sounds snarky but I don't actually mean it to be flippant. That's genuinely what it looks like to me. No snark intended!)