Except censorship of radical ideas has been shown to be effective, over and over again.
I’m on my phone, but there’s a whole bunch of studies that show the effects of banning radical speech on Twitter (think ISIS), and the outcome was, unsurprisingly, less radical speech on Twitter. It didn’t return, it didn’t evolve, it just… died.
Free speech is an important concept, but it’s important at both ends; it’s also free speech to deny someone access to your megaphone, should you happen to own one.
These studies are pretty much worthless. Of course it "works" if you remove your political opposition. At least in the short term. Why do a study if you could have just asked any other dictator?
What does "working" even mean? More support for a political party? Less resistance?
They’re worthless because you don’t like their outcome? There are others, this is a very well researched space.
You don’t have to and shouldn’t take my word for it. Study after study shows that radical ideas can successfully be removed from a platform though censorship.
What does "working" even mean? More support for a political party? Less resistance?