>who decides Courts, associations of people, etc. The canonical argument against your line of thinking would be Der Sturmer in Nazi Germany having enough free

>who decides Courts, associations of people, etc. The canonical argument against your line of thinking would be Der Sturmer in Nazi Germany having enough freedom to promote the interests of the Nazi party which consequently outlawed the free press and railed up the hatred to the point of genomics (See: Popper and the paradox of tolerance). We could also look at the radio stations in Rwanda preaching Hutu Power that contributed to the genocides there, or contemporary issues like the Rohingya genocides amplified by social media. Restrictions on free speech are universal across cultures at all levels of society including within this very community and I don’t see attempts to restrict speech which the proverbial common sense person would see as likely to cause dehumanization and derision and calls to violence as necessarily being all that impossible to do in a reasonably if not completely fair manner.