Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free speech absolutism is destructive. Facebook is an example of this. Climate change denialism is another. Holocaust denial is another.
> Free speech absolutism is destructive. OK, cool. So who gets to decide what speech is allowed? What do the parameters look like? What level of "consensus" gets to establish facts? What happens if there's consensus and someone discovers some new compelling counter-argument or evidence to the contrary for something? You'll find that even in places like Canada where there are hate speech laws, the restrictions are lim…
Do you want to make that decision before or after a hate crime happens?