[fighterpilot]

"Free exchange of ideas... best and only way to bring out the truth."

I don't believe this to be true. I only think the 1A is a good idea because it's too easy for an authoritarian government to co-opt speech restrictions. The free exchange in itself isn't what I care about.

People on the whole are pretty stupid, tribal and irrational creatures. I see no reason why a free exchange of ideas can't sometimes lead to a fascist or communist state if certain ideas get enough social contagion.

[shockeychap]

> I see no reason why a free exchange of ideas can't sometimes lead to a fascist or communist state if certain ideas get enough social contagion.

That's a fair observation, and making freedom a right comes with a host of risk and peril. But isn't that where the criticality of learning from history comes into play? Furthermore, name one dictator or authoritarian regime whose rise to power wasn't predicated on the necessity of government intervention and rule to protect the people. Everyone from Nero to Boneparte to Hitler to Chavez all claimed the mantle of necessity and greater good, and look where they all led.

The back-and-forth balance between freedom and containment of bad ideas can be tricky, but if you think you'll solve the problem of future authoritarianism through present-day authoritarianism, I don't know what to say.

[fighterpilot]

Restrictions on speech aren't about a utilitarian greater good, which is the logic of giving to person A by taking from person B because that results in a perceived net utility benefit. They're in the same category of things as drunk driving laws and assault laws, in that they're designed to protect person A from person B by limiting what person B can do, which according to right-libertarianism is the just role of the state.

You probably already agree that person A shouldn't be allowed to incite direct violence against person B. The thing is, hate speech laws for example aren't categorically different, since hate speech by A can lead to violence against B downstream. It's purely a difference in degree, difficulty to get right, and slippery slope risk.

I've thought about the case of Hitler and am unsold either way. On the one hand, the Weimar Republic had hate speech laws, and so in this N=1 they weren't effective at preventing the outcome they were supposed to prevent. On the other hand, it could be argued that such laws were merely too lenient. Hitler was genuinely popular and got 43 percent of the vote through mostly unfettered speech. He convinced people that his regime was a good idea. So this is a demonstration to me that unfettered speech can actually lead to the kind of outcomes that anti-1A people fear. Overall I just don't know enough about that history to say.