> What kind of speech aims to prevent people from being exposed to certain viewpoints? Any speech that argues for certain viewpoints to be banned, or tries to

> What kind of speech aims to prevent people from being exposed to certain viewpoints? Any speech that argues for certain viewpoints to be banned, or tries to incite people to action that would reduce the spread of those viewpoints (e.g. by threatening or punishing anyone who would spread them). The most obvious examples are articles that outright call for bans, such as https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/23/ancient-apocalypse-is-the-most-dangerous-show-on-netflix https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/nov/23/ancient... (about some Netflix show peddling what appears to be silly pseudohistory, tagline: "Why has this been allowed?"), or recent examples calling for removal of Twitter from app stores because of Musk's decision to unban Trump or otherwise trying to prevent that from happening (e.g. https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/twitter-employees-elon-musk-unbanning-donald-trump.html https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/twitter-employees-elon-...). People organising to contact the employers and other relations of those who voiced viewpoints they disagree with in an attempt to persuade them to terminate their relation with the individual in question. Campus activists campaigning to prevent talks by speakers they disagree with (e.g. https://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-disinvited-speakers-at-colleges-2016-7?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-disinvited-speakers-...), or trying to disrupt those talks if they do happen, for example by pulling fire alarms (https://bc.ctvnews.ca/fire-alarm-pulled-during-demonstration-against-trans-speaker-at-ubc-1.4480460?cache=yes%3FclipId%3D68597 https://bc.ctvnews.ca/fire-alarm-pulled-during-demonstration...), which I assume are not lone-wolf actions but planned and organised in public channels. Even in the case of "100 angry people responding back" that you cite, I think at some point a threshold is crossed where additional angry people responding clearly are not adding new perspectives but are rather, inadvertently or deliberately, intimidating the person they respond to by sheer mass of negative sentiment, resulting in a diminished likelihood that that person or anyone with a similar viewpoint will risk sharing that view in the future. > you might be assuming that most people secretly have opinions that they're just too intimidated to express I don't think that this is necessarily true or important, as most people have one of a very small collection of common opinions. My concern is more of the form that most interesting opinions are only held by a small number of people each, of whom sufficiently many are too intimidated to express them that I - or other people who would stand to benefit from the perspective - will never learn of them.