I have always been of the opinion of the ACLU types that the best approach to free speech is, to coin an NRA phrase: the only defense against a “bad” guys speech is a “good” guys speech. I feel like this may no longer be the case in some societies. Julius Streicher, for those who don’t know, was a Nazi publisher who, as far as I can tell, was hanged for speech. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judstrei.asp. It was horribly anti-Semitic but he was not a Nazi leader, did not sign deportation orders or participate in meetings planning Nazi atrocities. First question, why didn’t the “good” speech win (at least before the Nazi police state took over)? Second question, how will society adapt to 1000 Julius Streicher’s on their keyboards with the ability to reach millions as well as algorithms that will feed you a constant stream of this content if you appear to like it. The lie that Trump won the US election was able to convince a good chunk of the electorate even when there were many “good” sources of information telling you the opposite. So much so that a mob stormed the US capitol, with some seeking to execute political leaders. I don’t know the answer going forward. I mean censorship (including de-platforming) is a very slippery slope and would probably be more likely to silence left wing ideas that I might hold. OTOH the unprecedented reach of any yahoo with a computer along with the more outrageous the speech being the more attractive of clicks and money and dopamine bursts and the inability of many people to assess the credibility of arguments beyond a 3rd grade level cannot continue. Well, it can continue but I don’t know if a stable functioning society is compatible with it. Your thoughts. PS: I’m not accusing anyone (even Trump) of being Julius Streicher, but there is certainly no shortage of less egregious race baiting. But as the most extreme example what would stop him? And don’t say inciting violence, as there are many ways to be as bad but fall just short of this standard even if it has the same effect. The second reason I introduce him is he was hung by the international community indicating that we admit that speech alone can be very dangerous.