I’d go a step higher, the normative framework that informs our legislation is old and needs to be examined. We support a market place of ideas because, it was

I’d go a step higher, the normative framework that informs our legislation is old and needs to be examined. We support a market place of ideas because, it was argued that bad ideas would eventually be trumped by better ideas - only by examining bad ideas would we be able to move past them. Part of that remains true today, but it does not account for the realities of mass communication. The model ends up painting a passive, solitary image of ideas. But ideas are neither passive, nor without context. Signal without context is noise. Nor are brains neutral processors of information, they are vulnerable to psyops, malformed arguments, pressure, ignorance and emotion. I have read propaganda, I have seen arguments which sound legitimate, but underlying it is xenophobia and hatred. I know for a fact, that Popper was right and you cannot tolerate the intolerant. They do not come to discuss or exchange ideas. They come to use your platform as an opportunity to gain followers. And they use the gaps in our norms to create space for themselves. Counter speech is not a panacea, it require conditions to work. If those conditions are not satisfied, the strategy fails. The norms behind modern speech need to account for these trade offs. The status quo comes with the trade off that partisanship will increase, more people will be radicalized. This is the trade off, and people have to decide if they are willing to enjoy this trade off.