In other words, what they advocate is what exists at the bottom of the slope. You know, Godwin's Law and all that?
And what about other ideologies which have had similar results? How many has died under communist? What about religious extremist whose beliefs have led to mass murder?
Are we being consistent with the reasoning? If not, then the reasoning given isn't the actual reasoning, so what is the actual reasoning?
Take for example, a group that wants to remove undesirables from the US (I'll leave which group open for imagination, it doesn't really matter). They advocate non-violent removal through legal means. This sounds nice in practice, but many, especially libertarians, will quickly realize that any police enforcement of such laws would result in threats of violence. Namely, either the group leave willingly or police will begin to physically attack them to arrest them, and any resistance would be met with tasers on a good day or bullets on a bad day.
Even though they advocate non-violent methods, I think it is reasonable to say they are actually advocating violence (unless they can purpose some truly non-violent method that I'm unaware of).
I agree they are a hateful group. An odious group of people possibly only superseded in their vileness by extremist religious fanatics who won't hesitate to kill, but we're not shutting their speech down, are we?
In my view, this is one of those things that is binary. Either you have free speech, or you don't. There is no in between, finessing it. You end up with lese majeste and other nonsense bullshit.
Those ideologies did not have the hatred and violence at their core that Nazism did. That's why there is no "Godwins Law" when it comes to Marxism. That's my point: This is the most reviled philosophy that currently exists, and people are complaining about "free speech" when previously they would shriek "Godwins Law" whenever comparisons are made. That's how far we've fallen.
Saying that free speech is binary is incredibly misguided and a root cause of the problem. It's overly simplistic and absolutist and quite frankly, is complete and total nonsense. At some point something will be uttered that you or some other "free speech absolutist" will object to.
Yes, I object because your cause will be coopted to further a specific ideology at the expense of all others.
