[FaridIO]

The problem here is that everyone thinks their ideas aren't radical and that sharing them isn't indoctrination. I once left a religion, peacefully, not loudly or trying to tell anyone else how to live their life. People still in the religion thought I was radical and dangerous to the fabric of society. Charlie invited people to have a debate. Whether he was right or wrong at least to me with my lived experiences feels irrelevant, if that's dangerous to society then society is wrong.

[zug_zug]

There may be no systematic way to draw the line between dangerous opinions that need to be silenced and those that do not. There may be many people who draw that line incorrectly.

But that doesn't mean there is no such line. Almost everybody agrees there should be some cost to expressing highly dangerous views -- where we disagree is what that cost needs to be for a given view (reputational, financial, capital).

[FaridIO]

And in this hypothetical world where having dangerous opinions has consequences even though sometimes we draw the line incorrectly, I'm assuming you think your personal views could never be marked as such? We still live in a free society where at least the aim is to not hurt people in any way for expressing their own views.

[LZ_Khan]

I agree. I personally do not actually think Mr. Kirk was past the line. But for example Hitler and other demagogues were past that line.