Free speech set minorities free and it is true that it was abused by some people. For instance the feminist movement was indeed influenced by people wanting to legalize pedophilia. To their credit, at least at some point they distanced themselves from these people.
And it is true that the pedophiles did indeed defend themselves with the argument of free speech. As did people from the Third Reich.
What is undeniably true though is that free speech empowers minorities in a way a "liberal in an inclusive city" could never do.
Don't think yourself as a savior if you hand power to penalize speech to large media conglomerates and social media companies. You are no liberal, no progressive. You are just more the conservative, orthodox counter culture to people that do actually have liberal policies.
> pedophiles did indeed defend themselves with the argument of free speech
What are you on about? Pedophiles have the right to speak as freely as anybody else, which is to say without censure by their government. What do you think the first amendment says? Obviously "free speech" doesn't protect anybody from action, but they have the right to speak without fear.
Your post is what I'm talking about. There is no reason a company can't decide what is or isn't fit to print on their website. That said, big social media conglomerates shouldn't exist for other reasons. Nationalize Facebook, nationalize twitter. Personally, I'm done with those sites anyway, preferring federated social media.
And it is true that the pedophiles did indeed defend themselves with the argument of free speech. As did people from the Third Reich.
What is undeniably true though is that free speech empowers minorities in a way a "liberal in an inclusive city" could never do.
Don't think yourself as a savior if you hand power to penalize speech to large media conglomerates and social media companies. You are no liberal, no progressive. You are just more the conservative, orthodox counter culture to people that do actually have liberal policies.