What shows weakness isn't that the protestors are protesting rather than staying home. It's that they're protesting rather than engaging in debate. There seems

What shows weakness isn't that the protestors are protesting rather than staying home. It's that they're protesting rather than engaging in debate. There seems to be this idea that especially outrageous views ought to be banned outright. This seems weird to me, since the more obviously crazy an idea is, the easier it is to dismantle it. I'd rather debate Hitler than some of these speakers who get protested, because in front of an educated audience I'd win so quickly. Protesting speakers to bar them from speaking entirely certainly is effective as you say, but the effect of it is for onlookers to view the protestors as infants throwing their toys out the pram. What they're doing is an energetic way of saying, "I don't like what you're saying, so you can't speak." Their most promising defense is that speech is a threat to their safety, but I've yet to see the chain of reasoning that supports this. As a side note, I don't know how old you are and make no presumptions, but it's sometimes hard for me to explain to people over, say, 35 why this is a problem. "Well, social justice is good! Young people should be applauded for caring about it!" Right, but the banhammer has extended far beyond genuine racists, fascists, and nationalists. I encourage anyone to go on YouTube and listen to some of the speakers who've recently gotten banned. They're just not Hitler. They have criticisms, which frankly no one should be exempt from anyway, and they're right about some things and wrong about others. A lot of people would like to hear the bits they're right about.