> an idea that puts forward genocide as acceptable form of action should never be allowed under "free speech"

See I have a problem with the word "never". How about "rarely" or at least "once". A terrible idea should be given an audience once. Let it it be quickly refuted, then go back to better conversations. If someone brings it up again, point them back to the earlier discussion. That way it is established why it is a bad idea.

"That way it is established why it is a bad idea." Is that how most arguments on the internet end?

In practice, almost never. Internet arguments seldom result in both sides agreeing on a single outcome. Nobody is convincing anyone else of anything on the internet (most of the time).

Sometimes. Threads are archived. Questions closed but not deleted. New questions/comments disallowed. It meets a middle ground between absolute free speech and absolute moderation.

What I meant was people don't normally end a discussion, especially political, with one side admitting loss and agreeing that the other way right.

Those developed countries have people taking their banned speech underground. It is usually also very illegal to take their strongest arguments and argue against them. All you have left is hope that they will never gain stronger support.

That's fine, it helps. Countries the UK also have defamation laws that are much stronger than the US.

I read that what really brought down the KKK was a massive amount of lawsuits

Then it's not free speech. The whole point is that there are not restrictions. If it's restricted, it is by definition not free.

"Free speech" is a cool buzzword people think they can qualify for (or wish to), without the ramifications of true free speech (hurt feelings, bad ideologies being discussed in a positive light).

Freedom of speech is not a buzzword, it has a pretty good definition in the declaration of human rights and on Wikipedia:

> Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations or boundaries to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

The fact that most people on the internet (which seem to include you) are using it wrong is another thing. Free speech only applies in the relationship between citizens and the state. It has no meaning in the relationship between individuals and the platforms they're using for communication.

You're right. Companies have the right to censor things they don't like on their platforms. That's why people should stop using platforms that are frequently censored if they really care about "free speech." Just like how people can't "free loiter" on my personal property if I want them out of it.

I don't care about an arbitrary definition of two strung-together words, whose definitions individually, are absolute. When combined, their definition is just as absolute. The speech must be free. Free is simply defined as free. Not "free, but ..." in which case it is no longer just "free speech."

> I don't care about an arbitrary definition of two strung-together words, whose definitions individually, are absolute. When combined, their definition is just as absolute.

This feels like a deeper debate than I'm capable of having, but all language is a string of strung-together words with meanings. These meanings have reached a high enough degree of consensus to exist in a dictionary or semiotic treatise. I think that clinging to your own meaning of absolute free speech when faced with not an arbitrary definition, but one which was reached through a social and cultural consensus, is naive or willfully contrarian.

> Free speech only applies in the relationship between citizens and the state.

That is a pretty silly definition.

Imagine if a corporate owned mafia was going around murdering everyone who supports increasing taxes.

Surely, you would recognize that this has a chilling effect on speech, and could be said to control people's free speech rights, even though it is not the government doing it.

There are two definitions of free speech going around the internet discussion boards these days it seems. One is the legal one that has existed in our country since it was penned in the constitution, which protects you from government opression from publicly held opinions. That doesn't mean you can say whatever and expect no recourse from anyone, you have no protections from being kicked out of a private place or fired from your employer under this law, just that the State will not put you in jail or kill you over these words like other states around the world do for words. The other view is that you are allowed to say whatever you like on platforms like twitter and should not be banned. It has nothing to do with twitter. Twitter is not part of the State. People making it about twitter are missing the significance of the first amendment and what society looks like in places without protections on speech and religion from the State.

I'm not advocating for getting the government involved in forcing Twitter to allow all speech. I'm saying people need to stop continuing to use platforms that actively and publicly censor things on a daily basis, as if it's okay and normal now.

Fighting corporate-enacted censorship with government intervention is fighting fire with fire.

My words were "a wide range of topics" not "all the topics".

Personally I can think of a meaningful debate that can be had from talking about "genocide" but I'm pretty sure that people that would hold this opinion in truth are a little beyond what would be considered a "good faith" discussion.