This is an extremely bizzare argument. Firstly, the op like myself would have been against all those disasters of democracy as well. Secondly, you're using th

This is an extremely bizzare argument. Firstly, the op like myself would have been against all those disasters of democracy as well. Secondly, you're using things we deemed reprehensible enough to stop doing, outlaw, or repeal as an excuse to now do something in kind. Op seems to have learned from those mistakes, why are you trying to use them to justify making new ones? > Why is it that we have to ignore nuances in these arguments? I very much agree. Why can't you understand that just because we've never had perfectly free speech, that maybe it's still worth fighting for most of the time. And that a few counter examples do not therefore equate to free speech being something unworthy of protecting.