Let me clarify something, because it seems that people either refuse to read my initial essay about free speech, or they are choosing to remain ignorant.

“Free speech” is nothing but a shield used to protect ideas that actively harm the oppressed.

This is in reference to people calling themselves “champions” of free speech. The sorts of people like those in the alt-right, who actively and intentionally use “free speech” as an excuse to defend their harassment and violent rhetoric.

Now read it once again, thinking of these people. Why are they so adamant about defending “free speech”? Because if people finally stand up and say that speech deserves restrictions for the protection of social progress, the are no longer able to defend the open exhibition their bigoted, harmful ideas.

To make it absolutely clear: I am not against free speech. I am against the concept of the marketplace of ideas, as well as an absolutist approach to free speech. I believe that certain forms of speech should be restricted and/or censored for the general welfare of society. That’s what my essay was all about, the necessity of placing certain limits on free speech, and not holding it as a gold standard of civilization that should never be questioned.

You don’t end hate speech with more speech. The Internet has made the marketplace of ideas irrelevant, and “bad ideas” are no longer being pushed out, they’re just moving into certain corners of society, where they are allowed to fester, and as long as they exist, we cannot progress.