> enabling the courts to defend virulent bigotry is not what causes them to act to defend the rights of the oppressed. Virulent bigotry alone is not, and shou

> enabling the courts to defend virulent bigotry is not what causes them to act to defend the rights of the oppressed. Virulent bigotry alone is not, and should never be, a crime. You are literally advocating for thoughtcrimes to be punished by the courts. > And remember, we aren’t talking about governments taking away Tate’s rights. We are talking about posting on social media. Well I was suggesting that governments regulate the tech monopolies to protect speech on their platforms, given that they are the de facto public square of modern political discourse. I recognize that Tate's freedom of speech was not violated by private platforms censoring him, I'm asserting that those platforms should either be regulated as public squares with the same duty to uphold freedom of (legal) speech, or have their monopolies broken up (i.e. Open APIs and interchange format, with social media monopolies ideally switching to a federated model where nobody has the power to "deplatform" someone else unilaterally).