In light of recent repugnant comments made by both Donald trump and the boxer Manny Pacquiao, the censoring chorus once again is being sung. In particular a UK petition calling for the banning of Donnald trump to the UK has been written and will now be discussed in parliament. This is not the first time free speech has been a contentious issue in the UK, Kate Hopkins frequently makes headlines for expressing her ultra conservative views, and there have been many (albeit unsuccessful) attempts to have her prosecuted .
Here is why we need to defend free speech when people express their abhorrent views, not attack it:
Censorship only prevents the expression of these views, it will never prevent these thoughts from existing. Ironically making unpleasant comments illegal allows perpetrators of these comments to feel like victims of state oppression (and if ideas are legally sanctioned they'd be correct), and with perceived victim-hood, in their eyes, comes a twisted form of vindication that their views must be a 'truth that is too dangerous for them to hear'. The ironic paradoxical legitimization by censorship allows these ideas to propagate faster in private circles than they ever would have in public circles because rather than people basing an idea on its merit they can be fooled into basing an idea on how it is censored by the state. It is worth, also, drawing analogy to the Streisand effect which basically boils down to 'forbidden fruit tastes sweeter', censorship of ideas provokes curiosity and can in some cases result in an exposure that would never have happened if the idea had been allowed to wallow in its own irrelevance. "There is no such thing as bad publicity" is an adage that holds true to ideas more so than any other entity.
So we must ask ourselves, what is a more effective way of challenging views we consider repulsive? Do we let them fester in the hearts and minds of bigots, who, feel ever more legitimized in their world of perceived victim-hood? Or do we allow stupidity to exist, if only so that it may be challenged strongly in the "free market place of ideas"*. In fact, by censoring unpopular views we must accept that it also means that viewpoints are not directly challenged either. An argument cannot be torn down with the elegance of a water-tight rebuttal if it is not even allowed to exist because a rebuttal expressed on its own is not a rebuttal at all, but a monologue. And monologues will always look one sided to those that strongly disagree, why not allow the other idea be expressed and demonstrate the superiority of the good argument for all to see including fence sitters and those holding opposing views. That way, you might actually convert people with these unpopular views!
There is also an economic argument behind aggressive anti-free speech legislation. The budget of the state is not unlimited, and revenue comes from the taxes of wealth creators and workers. In wasting public resources on trivial matters of unpleasant views we are wasting tax payers money. Therefore, in order to practically achieve a society with more intrusive free speech laws we either have to raise taxes or divert resources from elsewhere. Keep in mind tax law is unlikely to change because of a minor amendment to free speech legislation, and that those political wheels tend to turn slowly anyway. So practically more aggressive anti-free speech law means police and legal resources diverted from elsewhere, and that potentially means we could see an increase in non-trivial crime. We must always remember there is no such thing as a free lunch, more resource allocation in one place inevitably comes at the expense of others.
Does that mean free speech should be limit free? No. Clearly we need laws to protect enticement of criminal activity, especially violence. Thiny veiled threats on individuals and collections of individuals of course should be banned as should malicious destruction of an individual's reputation. How do we draw a distinction? I admit it isn't always easy; however one must recognize the distinction between someone encouraging acts of violence on women and merely sexist viewpoints (for example). The former needs to result in prosecution, not because an unpopular idea is being expressed but because it is expressed in a way that may result in harm to individuals or groups of individuals. Think of it as the difference between a peaceful protest and a protest which encourages violence on political groups (and remember even peaceful protests can express very unpleasant ideas such as that of the Westboro baptist church).
I would also like to say that all too often people attack those that defend free speech by saying they condone such distasteful ideas. This could not be further from the truth, part of why I want free speech is so I can condemn bad ideas far more effectively than I ever would were the idea not be allowed to be expressed. Think of the almost awe inspiring moments in debate when a rebuttal is so strong and so well expressed that the opponent is left floundering in their own ineptitude (and that of their argument). Tell me glimpsing the genius behind a strong argument is ever done so well in a monologue! Incidentally, whenever a call for censorship is made you are turning an argument on that issue into one on the limits of free speech (and noting that a civil tone also is selectively favored in debate as it makes the argument seem more appealing) . The intellectual resources of mankind are just as finite as the economic ones, if one has to spend time defending the free speech then that is less time being spent attacking bad arguments (case and point this article).
We need to understand that freedom of speech really means freedom of unpopular speed. Popular speech is not at risk of being censored by the state (obviously that doesn't mean it should be), that is why as individuals we should be most vocal about the free speech of those we disagree with the most strongly.
*Quotation attributed to the youtube user Thunderf00t in his frequent defense of free speech.
