> Restriction of hate speech is not „moral authoritarianism“, it’s a good protection mechanism.

Those are the exact same things. One is just the perspective of the oppressor and one is the perspective of the oppressed.

> it’s a not well-thought idea

Why? You give no evidence to support your argument as to how restricted speech makes makes things “more fair and democratic”.

>Those are the exact same things

No, they are not. "Moral authoritarianism" is a judgmental label, putting equality sign between a democratic mechanism of protecting human rights and authoritarian rule, which is by definition undemocratic. A logical fallacy hidden behind a There's no place in a constructive discussion for such language, because it is not just untrue, but also offensive.

>Why?

There's plenty of historical evidence on how hate speech supports transition of society to a tyranny. Germany 1930s is the most obvious one (and the reason, why freedom of speech is restricted in modern Germany), but there are many many others. On the other side, there is not much evidence that ultimate freedom of speech results in more prosperous and democratic society.

> There's plenty of historical evidence on how hate speech supports transition of society to a tyranny.

And there’s plenty of tyrannical countries that have no free speech. What’s your point?

Also, democracies can absolutely be authoritarian. Look up the phrase “tyranny of the majority” if you want to see why following a democratic process is not sufficient to avoid authoritarian behavior.

Any big government that regulates all of the minutiae of its citizens’ lives at the expense of minority lifestyles is authoritarian, even if the he majority decided it.

There is even more evidence that countries with less free speech are more authoritarian. For example, consider Nazi Germany, here is an excerpt:

> When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the German constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Through decrees and laws, the Nazis abolished these civil rights and destroyed German democracy. Starting in 1934, it was illegal to criticize the Nazi government. Even telling a joke about Hitler was considered treachery.

Sounds like you are on the side of the nazi's, given that you support abolishing civil rights.

It is hard to understand how you could make such conclusion. I do not support abolishing civil rights and I never said anything close to it. What I was saying is that freedom of speech is not absolute and dogmatic American constitution is wrong about it. Human rights exist only in society and the society not just defines them, but also constrains them. There’s no property rights on uninhabited island or freedom of speech in an empty room where there’s no one to talk to. But where property rights exist because there are people who agreed to recognize them, there are also trespassing laws: the freedom of movement is constrained by the rights and freedoms of others. And property rights themselves are constrained: you cannot use your land to stockpile nuclear waste and sometimes you have to mow your lawn. There’s no reason to assume that freedom of speech should not be constrained in a similar way. The dogma is based on an assumption that any constraint to this freedom may lead to tyranny. The historical evidence, including your example, shows that this protection of freedom is not efficient and quite often can be harmful, enabling extremists to build up the foundation to seize the power.

I don't trust anyone in the American context to determine the line between controversial speech and hate speech.