People (including yourself, even if you don't realize it) argue for limits on speech in order to protect freedom and liberty. That's not an essentially authorit

People (including yourself, even if you don't realize it) argue for limits on speech in order to protect freedom and liberty. That's not an essentially authoritarian position. It's consistent with liberalism. For example, you probably support making incitement to violence illegal. That is an "authoritarian" position that you agree with. You are using the government to force someone to stop saying something that they wish to say. And yet you support it. Because you implicitly realize that there's no pure world where speech can't infringe on other's freedoms. In the real world you have tension between the rights and freedoms of two people. There's no substitute to fairly arbitrary line drawing that balances this tension. People simply disagree on where the line should be drawn in order to maximize overall freedom.