The fact that legal interpretation has changed over time is a feature; the essential point is that it is within the democratic institution of the judicial syste

The fact that legal interpretation has changed over time is a feature; the essential point is that it is within the democratic institution of the judicial system that the debate over and enforcement of acceptable speech should occur. Yes, I am committed to backing up my philosophical attachment to free speech at the expense of personal inconvenience. I realize that's an empty statement without actually being subjected to that reality, but that's the best I can do. If I'm wrong about the extent to which hate speech proliferates in unmoderated spaces (absent the adverse selection effect for sites like 4chan), then that's all the more reason to address that undercurrent of our societies. If anything, I'd argue pushing people off platforms where they might encounter dissenting views exacerbates radicalization.