You may view one of my other responses on the matter - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18318492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18318492 People like

You may view one of my other responses on the matter - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18318492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18318492 People like you support freedom of speech or expression only for your views. Democracy is underpinned by the principle, by the faith, that if people are given the right information they will make the right choices, no matter or learned or ignorant they are. This the reason why the votes of people who in less politcally correct times would be clinically labelled as idiots, morons, or simpletons carry as much power as those of members of the professions, respected academics, or even high court judges. The antidote to hate speech is not censorship, it is well reasoned counterarguments. This implies that you have taken it upon yourself to judge that some people are not intelligent enough to understand the counterarguments, and that they should be denied access to those counterarguments since those counterarguments will never be made or heard, if the arguments that are being countered are not allowed to be made or heard in the first instance. So can you, together with those others who believe freedom of speech should be curtailed, explain why you are the ones who are intellectualy competent to deny those you consider intellectually challenged the right to hear the viewpoints you disagree with? This is nothing more than intellectual arrogance and superciliousness on the part of the likes of you, and it is time you and likeminded people recognize it for what it is.