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

First of all I would like to apologize for any mistakes I might make during this debate since this is my first debate on this website (I signed up a couple of hours ago). Feel free to let me know should I make any rookie mistakes. I will start my counter-argument by stating that freedom of speech is the most important element in a democratic society. Without freedom of speech there is no democracy. http://news.cornell.edu... I will also talk about populism rather than right-wing populism because populism is the same whether it comes from the left or from the right. It is divisive, distractionary, and collectivist. Populism creates societal pressure by polarizing people into highly opposing groups, be it the elite vs the people (left wing populism) or the immigrants vs the natives (right wing populism). https://www.theguardian.com... Yes, populism is dangerous and it creates social tension. And yes there is a positive correlation between populism and crime rate. What you are advocating for, here, is that by imposing restrictions on free speech, populists would not find the avenues to communicate with the people and therefore they would never come to power and implement their dangerous agenda. This is a very 'the end justifies the means' approach which I am sure you will agree is not the way to go in a civilized society. 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. https://www.gov.uk... While it is worrisome that the rise of populism creates an outlet for racism and 'legitimizes' peoples' actions, and spikes in hate crimes are observed, by eradicating populism you would only achieve the elimination of those spikes in hate crimes -not the baseline hate crime rate that is the bulk of the problem. In your second argument you suggest that the free speech of populists undermines the debates that have to be had over socioeconomic issues that plague capitalist societies. You talk about central parties having to move to the right (or to the left I will have to add) in order to not lose voters to populist parties. 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.