[erichocean]

> Why do we value free speech?

Because free (i.e. unrestricted) speech is anti-fragile.

When speech is restricted to just the conventional wisdom (or really: what those in power are okay with), arguments no longer win the day and our ideas and beliefs about the world become fragile, vulnerable to catastrophic disruption by those who see reality more clearly.

History has shown that any restriction on speech ("book burning") is a slippery slope, so if we want the anti-fragile properties—and we really, really do—that means accepting some speech that is plainly wrong or offensive.

[tawpKek]

I think the idea that speech is anti-fragile works to a point, but is ultimately a bit naive about the way that power structures and language works. Its entirely possible to limit someone else's ability to communicate simply by communicating. Speaking isn't the same thing as being heard. I'm not talking about speech that is merely offensive here. I'm talking about speech that is specifically designed to dehumanize and devalue others. Obviously the line is murky here, and I'm not saying I have a perfect system worked out by any means, but I think the investigation is worthwhile.