zlacker

> Restricting speech is always in the interests of those that have the power to shape discussions, so limiting speech is always counter productive.

This is not true. Restricting hate speech is an obvious counterexample.

>>semi-e+(OP)
It isn't obvious at all. It doesn't help for that matter, but that is secondary. On the contrary, it is just a popular excuse to restrict speech because nothing about hate speech is objective. We see bad legislation around the globe and that will never protect any minority.

It is a bad idea and damaging and there is ample empirical evidence for that.

>>raxxor+R4
Please, link to the ample evidence. Quality research only, natch.

>>raxxor+R4
I love free speech, but you're going to have to convince me with a lot of evidence that Germany restricting pro-Nazi speech after WW2 was bad.

>>howint+LP1
How about that restricting pro-Nazi speech before WW2 prevented nothing.