Ok....no silencing people. Would you have it then that we undo the myriad controls to free speech that are already in law (controls on libel, hate speech, incite to overthrow the government, commercial secrets....the list is extensive)
who defines "Libel, hate speech, inciting to overthrow the government (by my interpretation, democrats seem to be guilty of that last one listed currently) I would argue that stopping people hiding behind free speech to propagate hate has allowed the minority voices to come forward.
you can't hide behind free speech when you are out in the open true ‘free speech’, without some ability to moderate it, actually just belongs to the strongest (you may seek examples for this in Nazi Germany, where mob opinion removed the ability for reason to speak).
It would seem to be appropriate to change the terms here. "True Free Speech" becomes an oxymoron when the terms moderate or controls are used - maybe we should call it "Limited, Controlled Speech"
Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao's China, Castros Cuba, had no concept of free speech, controlling free speech is fascistic Further, a previous commenter noted something to the effect that letting people speak freely stops monsters hiding, so that we may address them
seems reasonable (then hints at swift retribution). This is not free speech.
There was no hint of retribution whatsoever. How would you treat a lunatic racist? would you take them seriously? reasonably sane people have enough intelligence to make judgements, we don't need totalitarianism or a nanny state to work things out for us. Free speech as stated in the US constitutional amendment allows that person to advocate for any manner of hate or cruelty and that no harm may come to them for it. A person trying to act upon them for disagreeing with their opinion that, for example, infantile rape should be mandatory, is, in fact, the person committing the crime here.
straw argument alert - using extremes examples devalues your argument. how would any reasonable person see an advocate of a policy that infantile rape should be mandatory? Can that person easily hide while expressing that opinion. The truth is that we have (quite reasonable) constraints on free speech already in place
Then it is not "Free Speech" it's "Constrained Speech" and that using the concept to defend people who are wanting to restrict the rights of others is contrary to the very concept they are using to defend it.
seems like another straw man argument to me. We either have free speech or controlled speech. If free speech has restrictions then it is not FREE!
example: If I expressed an opinion on Facebook, or Twitter, or on a street corner that I thought that the Islamisation of the UK would lead to slaughter and we should fight against it, what would happen? I would be banned from facebook and twitter and I would get prosecuted and jailed for a hate crime. This is free speech?? really???