The counter-argument is that once a society has reached a consensus that certain practices are inherently evil – Nazism and slavery being the most obvious examples – then there is no risk in proscribing speech that champions the indefensible. But the content of the speech itself, however emotive, is beside the point. The question we must ask ourselves is not whether we should support the speech rights of neo-Nazis, but whether we wish to entrust the state to put such strictures in place. The authoritarian regimes of the past show us that once such powers are granted, they can be injudiciously
...more
I love how this book includes both side of the story
