The comment I'm replying to is asking where, if at all, society should be structured to prevent people from spreading bad thoughts, and it's clearly leaning tow

The comment I'm replying to is asking where, if at all, society should be structured to prevent people from spreading bad thoughts, and it's clearly leaning towards the angle that nothing should prevent people from spreading bad thoughts, and listeners should be free to make up their own minds. If certain types of bad thoughts are illegal to spread, the argument, I would think, is they should stop being illegal. (On a more practical note, Mailchimp's legal department is not a court of law. If freedom of speech / of thought-spreading is important enough to your society that you want to place legal obligations on private companies' platforms not to interfere with it, as TFA advocates, I think a natural consequence is that private companies should not decide what crosses the line and what doesn't, and probably that private companies should not be liable for what's said on their platform. In fact, that's more or less what Section 230 gives us! In a world with strong free-speech protections, it seems to me that Mailchimp should say that you can send whatever you want through their service, and should be encouraged by the government to take that approach, and that if you send something illegal, that liability is on you alone, after due process of law.)