I agree. Governments should not impinge on speech.

Familiar with the Paradox of Tolerance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I totally against allowing hate speech to be tolerated for this matter. Hitler was able to grow his power (and promoted hatred) while speech was still free. Once he had enough power, he reduced the freedom of speech. This is a counter example of how the paradox is real and hate is not necessarily overcome with more freedom.

Unless it isn't, see various oppressive governments. Nazi-germany showed how to hack free speech into oppression through censorship, book-burning. Russia showed and continues to show how to use techniques like generating multiple low-effort angles to balkanize readership and lionize their time, thus sowing confusion and discord. China.

Free speech won't and doesn't survive contact with the human race without an effective defence, and history shows merely counting on people to use more free speech leaves free speech and democracy open to coordinated brute force attacks.

Book burning is the opposite of free speech.

So is the great firewall of China.

Russia chills speech with assassinations.

Nearly all your examples are proving the opposite of your point.

My examples are not your examples, and your statements at best holds true for yours only.

The point is that merely thinking saying free speech should be free is not enough. As you well illustrate, the debate on what exactly free speech is means we need to define what falls outside of it very clearly.

Your examples were the CCP, Nazi and Russia. So were mine.

I gave examples of some of their strategies, on which I base my conclusions. Your examples are different, and therefore support different conclusions.

The Nazis themselves were censored before seizing power, and some say it helped radicalize them. Maybe censorship doesn't work all that well at its ostensible purpose?

> The Nazis themselves were censored before seizing power, and some say it helped radicalize them.

This is ahistorical. The only "censorship," they faced before they were granted power were in response to an attempted coup. They were radicalized prior to any censorship.

There's just something that doesn't sit right with me about indicating that censorship lead to a radicalization of Nazis. Violent anti-Semitism has eternally been a problem in Europe and both Austrian and German nationalist parties were entrenched in such conspiracy. It was always a violent movement.

They used intimidation and book burnings to restrict freedom of expression long before they had any formal power. Look up the Sturm Abteilung.

Read my post again. I'm not saying the Nazis didn't censor.

Whoops, sorry!

Qanon and the explosion of all the other conspiracies and hate groups who use the internet to amplify and spread their message is proof that the solution to bad speech is no longer “More speech”.

It’s been shown that fake information travels farther and faster than accurate information.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/false-news-travels-6-ti...

Yeah.

My grandfather used to tell me stories about his time speechifying the Nazis in Europe. Thank goodness Hitler was receptive to logical, well-sourced arguments.