> Freedom of speech has always been qualified, and this argument does not change it. At best it succeeds in arguing for free speech restricted to certain platforms, and the hate speech laws still allow for free speech to private audiences.

I'm talking against Canadian hate speech laws, not YouTube's policies. It would be nice if private companies erred on the side of free expression, but having the government force them to do so is a cure that is worse than the disease.

> The first argument doesn't make much sense. If I have terrible views but do not want to communicate them it is my right to be silent, but if this argument passes I am infringing on the rights of my potential listeners. If I choose to discuss my views to an exclusive membership, I am infringing on their rights as well.

You misunderstand me. I am saying there are people who want to read or listen to something, and censorship prevents them from doing so. Nobody is saying that you have a right to force people to listen your message or read it. That wouldn't generalize.

> Similarly, IP and copyright laws infringe on this right since they limit the audience of a work.

Copyright laws are about implementations, not concepts. The argument for free speech is about spreading ideas, not web rips of the latest Netflix special. Copyright laws have fair use exemptions to make sure they aren't used to inhibit people from spreading ideas. That's why I can use a clip of Pat Robertson in a video criticizing his policies.

> Second, just as most people we can agree that certain substances are harmful and should be made difficult to distribute, similarly most people can agree that some thoughts are harmful and should be made difficult to communicate. The question isn't a matter of whether to censor or not, but the degree and topics.

Considering the cost of prohibition and the war on drugs, this argument seems shaky for you. The cure is worse than the disease! People don't agree on this at all. If anything, it's the "legalize everything" tribe that has been gaining traction. So too it is for free speech. In fact in the US, censorship is forbidden for pretty much everything except leaking classified materials. The concept is called prior restraint.[1]

> Christians and Muslims do not think that the more icky parts of their texts should be read by children without appropriate direction.

This is not true. I personally know at least a dozen children who have the bible read to them uncensored by their parents. (In one case the father is a pastor.) They all believe that homosexuality is a sin and that women should be subservient to their husbands. They got these ideas from the bible, not from some modern day charlatan.

It's worse for the quran, which encourages people to become Hafiz (one who has memorized the quran).[2] Parents and schools encourage children to totally memorize the quran as it's easier to do when you're younger. Over 100,000 children a year memorize it. This includes the verses about valuing the word of a woman at half that of a man, verses ordering the smiting of the necks of disbelievers (if you wonder why so jihadists behead so often, it's because of that), and verses encouraging marital rape.

If one really believes these books are dictated by the creator of the cosmos, then every word of them is sacred and should be spread as far and as wide as possible. That is what these people do. That is where people like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri get their philosophies.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Quran)