A-are you actually comparing Elvis conspiracies with racial supremacy? Sounds like your logic doesn’t go further than “freedom of speech = good”

You say rights exist until they encroach on others’ freedoms. But promoting ideas of racial supremacy directly encroaches on others’ basic freedoms and safety. By your own logic, those views forfeit their protection.

You argue it’s important to demonstrate opposition to harmful views. That’s exactly what content moderation is - society collectively demonstrating opposition to ideas that threaten democratic values and human dignity.

You claim repression breeds hate and echo chambers. But platforming hate speech (by claiming they’re something to be “debated”) creates echo chambers of hatred and drives away the very people you claim should be engaging in debate. Your approach actually reduces genuine dialogue.

You reference people being killed for scientific beliefs. But you’re comparing the persecution of evidence-based scientific inquiry to the restriction of propaganda designed to harm others. These aren’t remotely equivalent - you’re actually trivializing historical persecution.

You’re basically saying “we must protect Alice’s right to a safe home by platforming Bob’s right to debate burning it down.”

Also your whole “But people who know better are also free to debate them - and prove them wrong” - completely disregards the physical reality of the burden of proof - it takes 0 effort to say “yggstyle hates people of color and that’s why they argue for people to have the freedom to say anything” - and now it’s on you to prove me wrong - but every time you spend time trying I’ll just claim a new ridiculous thing - absolute “freedom of speech” is a godsend for bad faith actors.

I hope you can see why this rhetoric is bullshit and why people should not support anybody’s “freedom of speech” to debate people’s rights to exist.