Max you are basically arguing that we need dictatorship to preserve democracy. That is an absurd argument.
You are arguing against the rights of citizens to through a democratic process being able to decide our laws. If citizens are not the ones making these choice then you are in effect instituting a dictatorship.
If citizens cannot decide through a democratic system what should be legal and illegal speech then you don't have a democracy. Who gets to decide what should be legal if not the citizens? Should Max Dancona be a philosopher king?
No, laws are not arbitrary. They are an expression of the will of the people. Or at least they are if you live in a proper democracy. If you say it is dangerous to allow a government to pass laws while representing us pertaining to free speech then you are in effect saying democracy is dangerous.
Judging by your end comment you completely misunderstood the whole argument of the article. I kept harping on and on and on and on about the IMPORTANT part about free speech being about speaking truth to power. I emphasize the ability to criticize those in power as the most important property of free speech.
And now you end your whole argument as if I opposed that? Frankly I find it rather offensive that you go to this pains arguing against me while seemingly not have spent any effort to understand my argument.
Like how on Earth could you have missed that I argued for the right to speak truth to power? This was in fact an area I advocated that we needed more protections as whistleblower protections are often far too weak today in too many countries. The US is certainly not a good example Look at Edward Snowden and Chelea Manning. The US government brought its full force upon them to silence them.
And no, you cannot just get a simple majority in government and then arbitrarily decide what speech is allowed and not allowed. Max you are just inventing stuff here. Modern democracies have constitutions. Those are pretty hard to just override without a very big majority. And you can bet that people will make a pretty big stink if you try to do that.
But if 90% of people want to change something then you cannot exactly deny them. Who exactly should have the authority to override the popular will? Me, you? Elon Musk?
