>Of course, that argument can be used to justify "quarantining" (i.e. silencing) literally any group based on what definition of "harm" is being used, and there

>Of course, that argument can be used to justify "quarantining" (i.e. silencing) literally any group based on what definition of "harm" is being used, and therefore is null and void. Indeed it can, welcome to Free Speech. The whole point though is that those that believe in the idea are also free to keep arguing for it, and to keep the flame alive, and if it has merit they will ultimately be able to convince society to change its mind. That might well take years or even decades >Better hope society never changes so that your beliefs are unpopular. This is the sort of lazy, passive thinking that is the source of much of the problem people have understanding this. There is no "hope" in free speech, only effort, forever, with no guarantees of success. Because there is no trustable guiding oracle, that's the whole issue and always has been. It's turtles all the way down. >Moreover, as the article demonstrates, "quarantining" doesn't even work. The article demonstrates no such thing. In fact, you yourself are being self-contradictory right here! If you actually thought it didn't work, why would you even care at all? You can't BOTH claim that private entities exercising their freedom of association and refusing to support ideas they believe wrong is a threat, which you do, AND claim that it doesn't do anything. It's one or the other. >A lot of rights we enjoy today came about because the backers of the status quo were unable to suppress the popular movements that back them despite keeping them out of the press and broadcast media as much as they could. A lot of the rights we enjoy today came about because those against the status quo very much struggled against the sensibilities of the mainstream through enormous, sustained effort. Not because they were handed over control of whatever media they wanted. Being banned from social media or not being offered your own column in a newspaper or whatever else doesn't stop you from working to get your message out in other ways. People like you love to CLAIM you want freedom of speech and association, but inevitably you only want it for yourselves.