The Futility of Censorship
&gt; How to balance the need to restrict hate speech with the need to safeguard people’s right to express repulsive, immoral, toxic, and, yes, dangerous ideas? How to deal with evident falsehoods that poison today’s polarized electorate and undermine democracy? How to make sure that the need for new ways of including racial and social equality in our common conversation does not lead to the false innocence of hygienic “safe spaces” that preclude genuine debate? How to counter those who have been the beneficiaries of the vicious suppression of the right to speak of the enslaved, Native Americans, immigrants, and gay people and who now weaponize free speech to safeguard odious prejudices about gender and race, privilege and history? Who will be the judges of what can be disseminated without themselves becoming censors?<p>I wonder about this paragraph. The author is comfortable summarizing conservatives censoring left-wing ideas but he becomes flustered when dealing with the reverse. His prose suffers. Of course using free speech to &quot;safeguard odious prejudices&quot; isn&#x27;t new, what&#x27;s new is civil libertarians losing their nerve.<p>Why is free speech important? Is it an end in itself, a natural right? Or is it important because open debate is necessary for truth-seeking and truth-seeking is how we make the world better?<p>The problem with the latter justification is that it&#x27;s contingent. If we decide that free speech does not lead to truth-seeking, or that truth-seeking won&#x27;t lead to a better world, we can withdraw our support for free speech. I think we should keep with free speech even if it ruins us. At least we&#x27;ll have learned something. If we give up our values, we&#x27;ll be just another example of a culture losing a game of chicken with itself.