Thank you for your thoughtful reply, .
The problem is who defines those lines and values, and totalitarian governments always censor free speech in the name of good-sounding causes—just as they’ve been doing to the detriment of humanity for the past four years.
As Orwell writes:
“At all times the Party is in possession of absolute truth, and clearly the absolute can never have been different from what it is now.”
We have the right and the duty to sift through different information and discard what is vile while celebrating what is loving and beautiful. Outsourcing that responsibility to the State, Big Tech, or another authority constitutes a dereliction of our duty as sovereign human beings and relegates us to the infantilized role of dependents whose critical thinking faculties have atrophied and who no longer have the will or ability to decipher good from bad, truth from lies, freedom from slavery.
And yes, I would let Goebbels speak because I would want to know who he is and what he believes rather than his statements festering underground, spreading unchallenged by those who are capable of dismantling his propaganda. As the historical ACLU held, the best way to combat unpleasant speech is with more speech. The better ideas will prevail in an environment that allows ideas to roam free.
I discuss free speech absolutism in greater depth in this piece:
