On the contrary. In most cases, it is imperative that illegal speech remain on online platforms. It's bad enough that governments censor criticism, alternative viewpoints (including ones we may abhor), and leaked information using the police, the judicial and prison systems, and their close ties with large media companies.
> Disliked speech is not illegal speech
Not so. There exist all of:
* Well-liked, illegal speech
* Disliked illegal speech
* Well-liked, legal speech
* Disliked legal speech
It seems like you're assuming the law, everywhere, is just and fair and should be not just followed but upheld.
> our first amendment
Most people don't live in the US, you know. In fact, less than 5% of people do. Not that I would agree with you had I lived there, but online content is not a US-local affair.
There needs to be a high tech system for logging and reporting Illegal Speech to government. And a means for government to take efficient and prompt action.
Disliked speech is not illegal speech and this article states the unique definition that each person has and poses some solves to allow people to use systems that filter out what they dont want to hear in addition to what is illegal.
The issue we are facing is what to do about the legal but disliked speech and whether to forcibly prevent people from hearing or seeing it.
The spirit of of our first amendment is very much the opposite. It is to protect your ability to speak. Our public forum is now virtual, privatized and highly centralized and we didn’t prepare for that as a society.
As they say “...Defend to the death your right to say it.”