We mustn't use the force of law to silence those we disagree with? Is that all? If we didn't in our heart of hearts welcome speech we disagreed with, I think we at least acted as though we did.

In my view the idea that freedom of speech just means that we can't or won't prosecute you for what you say is a sad declension from how Americans at their best thought about free speech. I won't prosecute you, but I will rile up my friends online and get you fired for what you said? That is the very attitude that I think violates the historic ethos of free speech in America.

There's nothing to reconsider. There are people that hate how free the speech is in the US, but their efforts are largely limited to the environments where they have full cultural and administrative control over - such as certain university campuses, or online platforms they own - and once you go outside these censorship areas, your speech is free, and the government - absent occasional local stupidity outbursts routinely corrected by courts - is not able to suppress speech in any meaningful way, and the courts are determined to keep it this way.

TLDR: some people want speech not to be free in the US, but so far they fail.

Is that actually true? It seems critical to her argument, but this statement was presented without much evidence (just a quote from a law professor) - but is that actually the purpose of the first amendment?

No, you completely against that principle.

I obviously think the author has the right to say whatever the hell she wants to say, but I'm against the content of her message.

I could write a really long argument to say why she's wrong, but in short: Because freedom and justice are the most desirable values to have in a society, even when people can use that freedom to say disgusting things.

Why is freedom desirable? Because it's the only way that an individual can develop their own life, chase their dreams and be happy in a manner that respects the freedom of other individuals. (My definition of freedom is that you can't physically attack other people or steal their property. Trying to expand freedom to things such as "freedom from being insulted" (i.e. censorship) is a contradiction, so the only logical way of defining it is around physical actions.)

Additionally, censorship implies that someone has to decide what speech is acceptable and what isn't, at that point, things become really arbitrary. What would the author think if her opinions were labeled as "hate speech" and people made posts wanting prohibit her from posting them? Where do you draw the line of acceptability? It's arbitrary and unjust.

No, nothing you can do can force me to respect what’s said. You’re always open to satire or ridicule or criticism or just being ignored. Peaceful demonstration is a right (it, too, is free speech).

There is no right to illegal speech although protest against its illegality might be appropriate. There’s no protection against libel or slander laws, nor the newer anti-discrimination statues. Speech might be “free” but it doesn’t lack consequences.

Is it?

Curtailing the ‘freedom’ to be as offensive as one wants, consequences be dammed, is not something everyone agrees with.

Even the US places limits on free speech for these reasons.

Hmm, is it free speech to use the threat of violence to enforce your personal religious views on others? I'm not convinced.

So what you want is to be able to say whatever you like, and suffer no consequences from that speech.

Sorry, the First Amendment does not guarantee consequence-free speech, particularly if your speech is a pack of lies or racist, or as occurs so often, both.

I would add that after a decade of watching the First Amendment cited almost exclusively to protect hate speech from psychopaths, my respect for it is badly tarnished.

No, that's exactly what it is. Free speech means nothing at all if it doesn't mean freedom of unpopular speech.

That's a reasonable position to take, IMHO.

However, that position is irrelevant to the law in the US. In the US, the government (except in very narrow circumstances[0]) may not censor or restrict speech.

However, private actors are not restricted from censoring or restricting speech on their private property.

That's how the law in the US works. If someone doesn't like it, they can try to get the law changed. For those who advocate that, good luck -- you're gonna need it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

This is a false equivalence.

Someone who is ok with literal direct calls to violence against individuals, being censored by the government, after someone's full due process rights to a trial are exercised, is much different than someone who wants most of their political opponents censored without any due process arbitrarily.

Everyone wants to limit some speech. Do you support limits on fraudulent speech? Defamatory speech? Incitement to imminent lawless action? Speech that violates confidentiality obligations? Perjury?

Everyone agrees that some speech is so harmful it needs to be prohibited. The dispute is whether we should allow or prohibit speech that causes harms of a lesser degree; it is a dispute about what is the right balance between the freedom to speak and the freedom not to be harmed by speech.

Everyone is a free speech advocate (in that everyone supports people having some freedom to speak), and everyone wants to limit speech (nobody wants that freedom to be unlimited.)

In other words, you’re happy to censor speech you disagree with, while waving the flag of free speech.

That's exactly what it is.

Yes. Yes it is. That's the point.

Does this mean you would support legislation to outlaw hate speech? After all that works against tolerance of others and is often used "to smear and destroy someones life and silence dissent from your position" "for what many believe to be innocuous or good faith beliefs."

> I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.