> You're being incredibly nebulous about "the problem"

You're right. The article is titled Why are Millennials wary of freedom. That's the problem I'm talking about. There's data in that article, that irrespective of where they find themselves on the political spectrum, newer generations seem to devalue the merits of free speech and democracy. Now why is that?

I think its just because of a subtle reason. Newer generations of listeners don't have the amount of intrinsic valor you give to free speech. They don't see all form of it as a requirement to a free society. I think they might even see it as a threat to their freedoms.

If you take even Canada, or Germany, you'll see they actually have outlawed forms of speech which is legal in the US. Hate speech is illegal for example. In germany insult is also illegal. In Canada, all speech can be restricted if it can be shown to be hurtful to a free and democratic society. For example, fake news is illegal in Canada. Similarly, no speech can be restricted if it can be shown to be beneficial to a free and democratic society.

Now, I think there's a certain amount of speech right now, which is hateful and insulting, and some of it could be demonstrated to be hurtful to a free and democratic society. You said "Any argument for free speech necessarily empowers unacceptable speech, and any argument against free speech necessarily criminalizes acceptable speech." Well, it seems that some other countries have managed to find a better balance and contradict that statememt, yet remained very free and democratic.

I agree with you on the 99%. Speech is hard to classify, what someone said, wanted to say, thought they said, and what someone heard, wanted to hear and thought they heard is very fuzzy. And almost all speech should definitly be free.

But where I disagree is on the last mile. I feel all newer generations all find that there's a large swat of hate speech right now, that isn't too hard to misunderstand, and they'd be okay if we forcibly toned it down. Which a lot of other free and democratic countries like Canada and Germany already do.

So I'm not saying to just restrict random vague things and make it law. I'm saying I think a bill to restrict certain nefarious speeches should be put forward, debated, refined and then signed into law. A good starting point for that is hate speech, insult, and incitement to do the same. Offcourse I'll leave it that these would come with more defined context and specifications as to what qualifies as such.

And now, that to me, would help freedom and the safeguard of the free society. By limiting speech such as hate speech, which targets freedom of others, you protect freedom. By toning down noisy speech of no utility like insults, you allow debates on freedom to be heard more clearly.

Ya, I'm okay with others preventing me from propagating my own hate and from shouting insults. If many people interpret my speech as such, and I didn't intend it to be, really, I'm okay being forced to reword myself, and express myself in a way that they understand. This should be possible, if I'm truly not trying to promote hate and express insult, then there's a better way I can express my thoughts then, and if I can't figure it out, well too bad for me. That's fine, really, it's not worth talking if no one understands what I want to say. Even more so if they undersrand I'm just insulting and hating with no good reason.

I think you just don't believe that this level of precision is possible. And I believe it is, based from data in what Canada and Germany restrict and the way their societies have turned out.

You can debate all matter of controversy without hating and insulting. None of this stands because of my own ideas. And examples of recent corporations taking actions against employees debating hot topics and getting fired over it is irrelevant, as that's more of a debate about corporate power, and the bounds of a contract. In fact, you can see that by the fact that while non of the restrictions I suggest are in place currently, they were still fired.

But, I have to say, you're making me think twice. I don't believe in the outrageous dangers of such restrictions, but you've made me think that maybe there's also little gain, and so the whole exercise might be a bit of a waste of time and effort. Yes, maybe being so close to the line is too much work, for little good. Maybe I worry about hateful and insulting speech too much, and its harmless, or maybe you're right, preventing that kind of speech is just covering up the inevitable, if people chose to hate and insult, society might be going that way no matter what restrictions are put in place.

I'll be thinking about that. Thank you for the discourse.