authoritarian is probably the right word, rather than left/right.

Authoritarian is also probably the rightward.

You're right, I think "illiberal" lurch is a better description.

Banning hate speech is not censorship.

Censorship:

the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/censorsh...

I'm not sure that definition is relevant; it's too extreme to apply to the situation.

By that definition the US censors speech such as incitement to violence, fraud, slander, and intellectual property. No place has ever been uncensored.

Like everything in life, there's a matter of degree to it and a question of what is censored.

The US government does not remove instances of incitement to violence, fraud, or slander, and most intellectual property law is probably unconstitutional but that's a different issue.

It does. Courts can require information to be removed, the executive branch can sieze servers, etc.

> most intellectual property law is probably unconstitutional

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

Then banning bomb making is censorship but there’s no opposition to that.

Banning instructions on how to make bombs would be censorship.

Banning the making of bombs is not censorship.

The former is banned.

This is where it's more helpful to talk about specific nations' laws. Books about making bombs are not banned in the USA, for example.

Here are the books "Improvised Munitions Black Book" and "U.S. Army Unconventional Warfare Devices: Boobytraps" from Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/Improvised-Munitions-Black-Book-Unabr...

Originally created for soldiers in guerrilla warfare situations, this handbook demonstrates the techniques for constructing weapons that are highly effective in the most harrowing of circumstances. Straightforward and incredibly user-friendly, it provides insightful information and step-by-step instructions on how to assemble weapons and explosives from common and readily available materials. Over 600 illustrations complement elaborate explanations of how to improvise any number of munitions from easily accessible resources.

https://www.amazon.com/U-S-Unconventional-Warfare-Devices-Bo...

Some of the materials discussed in this special forces guide to boobytraps include:

- Disguise boobytraps in common items.

- Disguise boobytraps in structures such as window frames and stairways.

- Disguise boobytraps in outdoor areas, in bushes and underground.

- Learn the mechanics of the various types of firing devices, detonators, fuses, cords, adapters, blasting caps, and lighters.

Actually following instructions in these books may lead to felony charges in all 50 states. But writing or reading about them is perfectly legal. The same goes for reading and writing about making scheduled drugs, poisons, and other controlled items.

It absolutely is not. You can find books on bomb making in every library and book store in America.

To steel man you, exporting said books to certain countries is technically illegal under the same law that makes this wikipedia page technically illegal to serve to Iranian IP addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...

"Throughout history".

I doubt all the Soviet Union and other authoritarian communist regimes censored for decades was hate speech.

Sure, at the moment the left seems to largely align with social liberalism, at least in the west. Maybe authoritarianism is generally more correlated with conservatism, and conservatism with right-wing politics. But left vs. right and authoritarian vs. liberal aren't really the same axis, and it would seem historically quite myopic to think left-wing views somehow confer immunity to abuse of power.

> Plenty of left-leaning governments throughout history have used censorship.

What does that have to do with Modi? Modi's government has moved far to the right.

Not the person you're replying to, but there is this persistent fallacy that left is inherently good and right is inherently evil, despite the fact that neither side of the political spectrum is inherently good or evil. Great injustices have been committed under both liberal and conservative governments throughout history.

In this modern case though we have another rightward illiberal authoritarian lurch.

In modern times these seem to have high correspondences.

The correspondence is with power.

Opposition parties are often anti-censorship, pro free speech etc. Once they come into power this all changes and they drift towards authoritarianism.

Western, left-leaning governments have invented the term "hate speech" to justify this behaviour, right-leaning governments would often use "family values".

Not every restriction on speech is the same.

Restricting hate speech protects the politically vulnerable, the minority, the oppressed. It's not a restriction on hate speech toward the government.

Restricting 'anti-family' speech protects the status quo, those in power, the political majority and oppresses the vulnerable minority. For example, look at the discrimination against LGTBQ people now.

> there is this persistent fallacy that left is inherently good and right is inherently evil

Who said that? It seems fabricated to me, but what do I know? Show us some evidence.