> But insisting that preventing speech will always lead to good outcomes is also not historically compelling yes, agreed. (Also, I really meant it when I said

> But insisting that preventing speech will always lead to good outcomes is also not historically compelling yes, agreed. (Also, I really meant it when I said "I'm pro-free speech".) > And now you're back to DanielBMarkham's argument I don't think so. His argument still seems somehow fundamentally wrong. These notions of good and evil, of true and false, etc., all seem to somehow miss the point for me. I guess here's a good specific way of making this point: I would support free speech even if the censor were perfectly good and omniscient and all-powerful and maximally ethical and perfectly charismatic. Perhaps especially if. How would DanielBMarkham's justification for free speech ever get you to that point? I don't think it does. Also, getting the justification right somehow doesn't seem academic to me at all. It seems quite fundamental. Why? because any supporter of censorship does believe that their censor is, if not perfect, at least better and truer and more charismatic. And perhaps they don't want the censor to be all powerful, but certainly do what the censor to be more powerful.