While what you say isn't wrong, it doesn't really address gps point: the article is bad. It points out that according to the supreme court that fire in theater

While what you say isn't wrong, it doesn't really address gps point: the article is bad. It points out that according to the supreme court that fire in theater isn't first amendment violating, but the article mostly focuses on non-first amendment free speech, a much broader concept. So it needs to convince me being able to shout fire in a crowded theater is morally right. It doesn't even try, except perhaps in the xkcd subsection, where it ultimately avoids the difficult question posed, by saying sure kicking someone out is okay, unless people do it collectively, then it's really bad. But there's no difference between those two things. The article also makes the an all too common mistake here: > If it were true that hate speech laws reduce intolerance, we would expect to see fewer hate crimes where such laws exist. Yet, in 2019, in the United States, there were 2.61 hate crimes per 100,000 people; in Denmark, there were 8.08 per 100,000 people; in Germany, 10.34; and in the United Kingdom, a whopping 157.67. Forgetting that a place that enshrines certain things in the law is probably going to (culturally) take them more seriously in terms of reporting. One thing I think we've can ask agree on is that if you ask a black American if they think 2.61 is representative, they'll tell you no, hate crimes are far more common. This is the same as for example sexual assault tracking in Nordic countries, where definitions are broader and reporting more common, so a naive look at the stats suggests rape is rampant in Norway and Denmark when it probably isn't any more common than in the us. > Censors always claim that whatever they want to censor is false or misleading or harmful Are you talking government censors or little-l liberal other individuals who choose to deplatform you "censors"? He also gets some things confused: > For example, the government has a duty to protect you from being attacked by a hostile mob that doesn’t like your ideas or having your public speech disrupted by a heckler’s veto. Is only true on government platforms, like publicly funded universities or k-12 schools except those violate speech laws all the time actually and no one cares. And of course you can't threaten the president in certain ways that don't violate clear and present danger or you'll be arrested. And of course your argument, as with mill's trident, assumes everyone is rational. What happens when the right answer is emotionally difficult to process and the wrong answer is simple?