[apcragg]

It isn't a binary decision and it is incredibly dishonest for you to frame it like it is. Freedom of expression is not foundational. Certainly inciting violence, advocating genocide, or engaging in targeted and repeated harassment does not fall under the auspice of an unalienable and foundational right. In consenting to governance and inclusion in society one forfeits some absolute freedom that society has deemed unacceptable. That is the nature of society. The argument should lie in what and how society deems things acceptable because there is certainly a debate to be had there. Concerns about oppressive governments or censorship of thought are valid and just but do not and should not require declaring expression limitless. Society has deemed some expression harmful and participating in society requires accepting that. I believe it is a good thing that there are things society has deemed unacceptable and acknowledge that I give up some of my absolute freedoms to live in such a society.

[nokcha]

>Certainly inciting violence, advocating genocide, or ... do not fall under the auspice of an unalienable and foundational right.

Abstract advocacy of illegal violence (as distinguished from inciting imminent illegal violence) is constitutionally protected speech under the First Amendment. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

[cameldrv]

Freedom of certain kinds of speech is foundational to a society like America that has always been quickly changing demographically, technologically, and economically.

We are making up the rules of society as we go along, and we are going to make mistakes, and circumstances will change such that old rules don’t work anymore. In order to figure out what new rules should be, we must be able to discuss them. If the proponents of one set of rules are able to prohibit the discussion of anything else, you had better hope they have the best possible set for all time, because you’re stuck with them. Collapse is inevitable if anything significant ever changes.

The reason to hold the line and do things like defending Illinois Nazis is because two sides on a contested issue will always want the other side to shut up. The powerful side will always come up with some excuse as to why the weak side must urgently be silenced in the name of safety. Strong principles are powerful because they give moral authority to help the weak stand up against the powerful. If there are obvious, clear exceptions like yelling fire, it’s probably OK, but it still gives the strong side a toehold to draw an analogy and silence the weak.

[SomeStupidPoint]

Society is not a force of nature such that its decrees carry the weight of natural law.

People can (and often should) resist what society decrees, because it's only through that dynamic tension of conflicting forces in society that we can reasonably advance.

> I believe it is a good thing that there are things society has deemed unacceptable and acknowledge that I give up some of my absolute freedoms to live in such a society.

You buried the lede -- your whole post is really dressing up why we shouldn't resist a societal decision you personally heavily agree with, while not giving real credence to people who disagree with you.

Pitching society-uber-als when society has made the choice you like is really cheap partisanship.

> Freedom of expression is not foundational. Certainly inciting violence, advocating genocide, or engaging in targeted and repeated harassment does not fall under the auspice of an unalienable and foundational right.

These are also things on which many people radically disagree with you. Stating them as facts is just begging the question.

[apcragg]

> You buried the lede -- your whole post is really dressing up why we shouldn't resist a societal decision you personally heavily agree with, while not giving real credence to people who disagree with you.

That is a fair criticism. A counterpoint to my own post would be that pushing what is acceptable and questioning the norm is what has always driven progress, be it abolishing slavery, accepting other sexualities, religions, scientific views, etc. My point was rather that rights like expression are not absolute by the nature of the social contract. Requiring that they be unimpeachable is not compatible with living in a social structure.

> These are also things on which many people radically disagree with you. Stating them as facts are just begging the question.

There are people that disagree for sure. The point isn't that those, in particular, are universally agreed upon but that there exist limits to absolute freedom.

[alansammarone]

> > Freedom of expression is not foundational. Certainly inciting violence, advocating genocide, or engaging in targeted and repeated harassment does not fall under the auspice of an unalienable and foundational right.

> These are also things on which many people radically disagree with you. Stating them as facts is just begging the question.

I am among the ones who radically disagree. I want to live in a society where all of those things are allowed, but people are just smart enough to ignore them. I think this is a much better prospect since it decentralizes responsibility.