> The surprise isn't that censorship would exist, but that we would support it. Please don't speak for me. > It turns out I won't defend, to the death, your r

> The surprise isn't that censorship would exist, but that we would support it. Please don't speak for me. > It turns out I won't defend, to the death, your right to copy and paste the n-word a million times and call it discourse, and death threats to anybody, especially journalists, are simply unacceptable. Which are justifications for censorship how? > The surprise is that online, people yell "fire!" into a crowded theater for the fun of it Hu? What would be an example of that?! I can't really imagine how that analogy could possibly apply to online conversations (given that those usually don't take place in a crowded theater) ... > I now find myself supporting limits on speech - not by the government, but the corporations running the modern day printing press. So, you are convinced that censorship by corporations will overall have a better long-term outcome for society than free speech combined with efforts to change people's minds (instead of preventing them from saying what they think) and other approaches to combatting crimes? > It turns out ideas are dangerous, but not in the way we thought - we thought they would set us free and railed against government censorship, but instead people were seduced by the idea that they were born kings, only to have that taken from them by the immigrants/Jews/homosexuals/media elite/Hillary/Trump. Yes, I agree that ideas can be dangerous, and as far as I am concerned, in exactly the way that I thought. I think one of the most dangerous ideas ever is the idea that authoritarianism is a solution to anything. Some use that idea to come to the conclusion that you have to elect a strong leader that will deport all Mexicans. Some use that idea to come to the conclusion that you have to empower a private communication monopoly to decide what speech is acceptable in society. All do it with the expectation that the power they put in place will defend their interests. History tells us that that is a naive expectation. > It turns out using the ashes of public education to shine the light of liberty ends up with racist public opinion. Are you sure that you aren't confusing visibility with existence? That is to say: Has unrestricted online discourse led to people adopting a racist standpoint, or has it simply made visible what was there all along?