That we should restrict free speech to combat the rise of right wing populism

In response to Pro critiquing my explanation of the correlation between populism and hate crimes I will once again say the same thing: "In your first argument you outline how populism maintains its heterogeneous following by having unspecific policies and by blaming minority groups which in turn leads to the rise of hate crimes. I find this argument flawed not because that populism does not positively correlate with a rise in crime rates but because it is just that -a correlation. The way you lay out your argument suggests that populism creates racism and xenophobia as if it was not there before. The matter of the fact is that racism in society is always there but finds its way into the mainstream through the rise of populist movements. The rise in hate crimes you mention is transient and subsides with time." Pro found the source I provided in support of my claim that free speech is an inherent part of democracy to be lacking. I therefore will provide a peer reviewed scientific article which supports my claim: http://www.jstor.org... "One of the fundamental principles of democracy is that everybody has to respect the political opinion of everybody else, since all are equal and free. Tolerance, minority rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, so characteristic of democracy, have no place within a political system based on the belief in absolute values. This belief irresistibly leads ..... Solely because of this possibility, which only philosophical relativism can admit-that what is right today may be wrong tomorrow-the minority must have a chance to express freely their opinion and must have full opportunity of becoming the majority. Only if it is not possible to decide in an absolute way what is right and what is wrong is it advisable to discuss the issue and, after discussion, to submit to a compromise. This is the true meaning of the political system which we call democracy and which we may oppose to political absolutism only because it is political relativism." page 38 The burden of proof lies with Pro to make a logical case as to why free speech is not an inherent part of democracy. Pro then goes on to ask the question of whether I support hate speech. While I am categorically against the contents of hate speech I find it very hard to justify and support the restriction of an individual's right to speak their mind. I do not support hate speech but I support the right of people to produce hate speech. To quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her illustration of Voltaire's beliefs "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Pro then suggest that freedom of speech is an American constitutional right and not a right in all democracies. This is grossly incorrect. For example all members of the European Union (EU) have signed the European Convention on Human Rights as well as their own national laws concerning Human Rights of which freedom of speech is a part. Also, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is a legally binding charter that has been signed by all EU members. Elsewhere in the world, most democracies have freedom of speech in their bills of rights and/or constitutions. Australia is the exception to the rule. Pro's first response to echo chambers is that they win that debate because I conceded that people can tell other people that they should not vote for an individual. Pro shows a lack of understanding between telling someone not to vote x or y and enforcing someone not to vote x or y. I do not understand Pro's second response to echo chambers. In their third response, Pro talks about my lack of response to their structured analysis in their first argument which talks about "how the shallowness of the coalition of right wing parties means you do not help the people that fundamentally give you their democratic mandate". I feel that this outside the scope of this debate. We are debating whether restriction of free speech is a prudent solution for combating the rise of populism. This debate is not about the failings of right wing populism policies. Pro then goes on to attempt and justify their willingness to limit and control free speech by listing everything that is bad with right-wing populism. To this I will once again state the following as in the first round: "Political parties are living organisms so to speak. They are comprised of representatives of the people and are a reflection of the people. Political parties move their position on the political compass all the time in order to gain or to not lose votes. Those moves however are instigated by shifts in societal thinking. It is the people who create pressures in the political system and make parties to adopt certain policies. Those societal shifts might create new populist parties that will then make other parties move to the left or the right but the instigation happens within the society. I am afraid that if politics is dragged to populist gutter that is because the electorate is of that level. A below average electorate explains the second point you make about populists using shocking language. When you have a below average electorate you can use charisma and shock tactics to appeal to their emotions and manipulate them because they lack a logical brain. The only way to have an electorate that is above average, intellectual, and has a logical brain is by educating it. And the only way to educate it is through free speech. You have to be willing to challenge views, to go to the gutter and rise above it in order to show to people that the alternatives are magic thinking. By curtailing free speech you create echo chambers that relax the "muscle" of logic. All policies should always be debated and challenged if we want progression in society. By restricting free speech you also create a slippery slope. If we start restricting what we find inconvenient now, who is to say that 10 years down the line more and more restrictions start happening and lead to individuals not being free. I feel that the argument you make assumes a very passive electorate that is a victim to the whims of politicians when in fact it is the exact opposite. The electorate is one of the driving forces between changes in the political landscape. Politicians do not shape the views of people (at least not to the extent that you make out they do) they merely act on them. In the end, if we restrict free speech in order to combat populism, we will end up disenfranchising people even more because they will not have the outlets they want. And disenfranchised people are the second worse enemy to democracy. The worst enemy? Restriction of free speech." The way that Pro outlines their argument suggests that they are willing to curtail freedoms from groups of people if they deem them dangerous or if they dislike their views. That is a very dangerous stance, uncharacteristic of people with democratic values and closer to an authoritarian view of the world in which you can silence things and people you do not like. I believe that behind their argument lies the thought that their view of the world in the only truth in the world something that is false. Nobody holds the absolute truth. We try to reach absolute truth through debates and arguments between opposing views. Of course limiting free speech will make debate impossible and therefore strengthen the belief or people like Pro that they hold the absolute truth.