> Perhaps some people against free speech don't even claim that the people they want to silence are wrong. Is that better?
That's an interesting spin on "people have limited tolerance of free speech, when that speech is flagrantly intolerant." The argument is that tangible and quantifiable harm can arise from certain utterances. Such speech is not "wrong" per se, but a violation of the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
> What is up with people just ignoring the content of the message that they are replying to and either repeating what they said before or reply to something that was never said? This seems to be more and more common in HN these days.
Sure, I was interested in addressing the "people have limited tolerance of free speech, when that speech is flagrantly intolerant." specifically rather than your main argument. I do not think that I repeated any argument nor replied to something that was never said nor do I think that this debunks your main argument.
There's a razor in use; I advocate tolerance of speech up to the line of intolerant speech.
Yes, people are intolerant of all sorts of speech and expression which are perfectly harmless and protected speech. E.g. gay people kissing in a movie is "not family friendly" whereas straight people kissing is downright expected. Or, people being harrassed for wearing their symbols of faith in public, etc. That's speech and expression that aren't harmful, though they do offend bigots -- there's no demonstrable harm in those expressions, and the offended can piss right off. (edit: harrassing is not free speech; wearing symbols of faith is)
What I was referring to as intolerance is hate speech. Calling for violence, denegrating a class of people, etc. There, real and demonstrable harm is done.
You "debunked" the least generous interpretation of my statement, and thereby completely avoided the point.
That's an interesting spin on "people have limited tolerance of free speech, when that speech is flagrantly intolerant." The argument is that tangible and quantifiable harm can arise from certain utterances. Such speech is not "wrong" per se, but a violation of the principle that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.