> As for racist speech, I really truly believe that censoring does not ever serve its intended purpose.

What is censoring for you?

I don't see a single Western democracy that is not "censoring" or restricting the rights of individuals to some extent. It's just to a different extent. E.g. the US has speed limits on highways, but Germany hasn't. You must not deny the holocaust in Germany, but you can do so in the US.

The argument that there is no grey area seems flawed to me. Instead, can we, as a society, discuss productively where we draw the line?

> E.g. the US has speed limits on highways, but Germany hasn't.

A speed limit is a censure not a censor by any means whatsoever.

> "censoring" or restricting the rights of individuals to some extent.

Censorship is not any restriction but restrictions on books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc.

Agree with your definition of censorship.

> A speed limit is a censure not a censor by any means whatsoever.

My point is there is a reason every single Western democracy has restrictions to free speech. And these restriction come from the same rationale as a speed limit, say, that is to balance the rights of individuals with the rights of all other members of society.

That is an excellent point. Thank you for the clarification.

Yes, absolutely :)

I agree with grayness, I just happen to draw my line fairly, for lack of better word, liberally - and specifically so that we Can, to your point, discuss ideas productively as a society - something that censorship explicitly and by definition prevents! I am a proponent of marketplace of ideas and open discussion.

To your example, I do not see German laws making denial of holocaust as even remotely effective. I believe they are in fact counter productive - I've met people who use them to confirm the notion of "Jewish conspiracy". I do not agree with these people! But I'd rather have them spew their nonsense in the open, and be able to freely tell them they're wrong, unhindered by naive and ineffective at best attempts at censorship.

(speed driving laws are not censorship in any way that I've seen the word defined. Not every law is censorship, not every action is speech/communication).

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning - why would some negative effects of an intervention automatically invalidate the positive effects? If you don't think there are plenty of positive effects, feel free to speak to somebody from the German Jewish community and see how they think about it.

Which is my point - in a democracy restrictions to the rights of individuals are there to protect the rights of others. This rationale is shared by many restrictions to individual rights, hence the speed limit example.

There is merit to the idea of the 'paradox of intolerance.' If we tolerate someone explicitly being intolerant, what have we achieved except changed who is allowed to be intolerant?

“There is merit to the idea of the 'paradox of intolerance.'”

no there isn’t

Racism is wrong and dangerous, and giving oxygen to it helps propagate and give validity to it.

Censoring it might keep the racists to their ugly selves, but that's OK with me.

>>"Censoring it might keep the racists to their ugly selves, but that's OK with me. "

I used to think of "Racism" and "Racist" as binary . You either ARE or are NOT a racist (and "I am definitely not!":). Life, and people smarter than myself, have thoroughly convinced me that it is a spectrum instead. The most open-minded, liberal, self-aware, "un-racist" people I've met realize there are impulses, tendencies, biases in all of us. Kind of like some of the smartest and most knowledgeable people are humble and aware of their gaps of knowledge. Thinking racism is binary and "I'm not it", blinds you to many aspects of it.

I remember a poor but enlightening joke a long time ago: "Those driving slower than myself are idiots; those driving faster are maniacs". I feel we may have similar personal line on racism spectrum: Those more close-minded than myself are "Racists!!!" those more open minded are "Woke!!!".

Which is to say - I don't think there's an easy, small, easily identifiable group that we should just lock up. We can start at the bottom of spectrum and quickly agree that "well these people are definitely racist", but pretty soon we'll get to the delta between our two lines, and then who gets to decide who is locked up / what should be censored? Whoever we eliminate, whoever we lock up, there's going to now be the next person/group/opinion that is now at the new bottom and needs locking up.

I agree with first claim.

We clearly disagree on the second so can you elaborate? I believe formal legal censorship of an expression GIVES it oxygen and will subsequently increase it.

My understanding is that studies show deplatforming actually works if the goal is to remove the broader cultural influence of a group. That is to say, if there is a group on platform A who are then group-banned from platform A, when they move to platform B the group is actually smaller in size and has less influence. If this happens from platform B to platform C the group continues to become smaller and have less influence. The same papers I read also pointed out that the people who follow the group across platforms become more and more entrenched though, which is also interesting.

Or you know, occasionally you accidentally create a new front in the culture war which is far more expansive and destructive than the side effects of the original problem.

If this were true, "heretical" movements (Christians in the Roman Empire, Protestants in the 16th century, Liberals in the 19th century, Nationalists in multi-national empires of the early 20th century) would have never prevailed, because they were "deplatformed" by the powers-that-be with vigor. In fact, they were often even decapitated, not just deplatformed. But they were often successful in the end anyway.

Brute force (and deplatforming is brute force) isn't an automatic recipe for victory in a war of ideas.

> and giving oxygen to it helps propagate and give validity to it.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If you actually care about fighting racism, you have to be able to see it. You have to be able to understand it. You have to be able to track it. Driving racist rhetoric underground, making it hard to follow what groups are being targeted or what lies are being told, making it more difficult to identify who is involved in racist groups, what their numbers are, and who is listening to them doesn't help fight racism. Racism exists, and we need to face it. We can't just hide it away so that we can feel better or pretend the problem is solved.

You can't fight an enemy you aren't allowed to see.

"Like a boil that can never be cured as long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its pus-flowing ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must likewise be exposed, with all of the tension its exposing creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

And so today I learnt another great MLK quote, thank you!

Who gets to define what is racism and what isn't? And how broadly do we apply this logic? Racism is wrong and dangerous so we can censor. What about sexism? Ageism? Heightism? Extend this out and anything that can be potentially offensive to anyone shouldn't be allowed.