That's Popper.
Does that sound like "we can't let people speak"?
Or would that actually be more in the lines of "we should expose their followers to the arguments their leaders don't want them to see"?
They don't get doxxed, they can't be identified in a crowd, they can blend with whatever the majority is.
It is very easy to defend "free speech absolutism" when you're not the target of hate speech. When you're not the target of harassment. When no one is declaring that your rights should be removed, that violence against you or one of your group memberships should be acceptable.
"We just need to have good arguments" is something said by a person who's participation in the discourse is entirely voluntary, and who's stakes aren't "I have a right to make decisions about my own body", "I have a right to live unharassed in my private life", "I am equally entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
"Free speech absolutism" is something only ever advocated for by people who don't have to care about what that speech is advocating. Who have the privilege to turn a blind eye to stochastic terrorism, and will argue out one side of their mouth that "police have no duty to protect you from crime before it happens" while arguing out the other "well a few bad actors should be dealt with by the police".
Meanwhile, in the real world - bomb threats to children's hospitals[1].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/31/boston-child...
Yet, I still would agree with a free speech absolutist much more so than with someone who thinks they know best about what speech is ok or not. And that's precisely because I'm a minority. I know that having a gatekeeper that decides what is or what isn't hate speech is never a good idea in the long run except if you belong to the majority who ultimately gets to decide what speech is ok or not.
It is also quite ironic to use "stochastic terrorism" (which is a dangerous term in and by itself) as a justification for your argument. It's a complete regurgitation of early 2000s talking points, especially to imply that those who disagree with you are turning a blind eye to some form of terrorism. In a way, it proves my point about being suspicious of any attempt to restrict free speech. Because it's the same exact tactic that was used to prop up islamophobia and justify human rights violations (I mean, who would want to turn a blind eye to terrorism, right?!).
What were you prevented from saying "because it was hate speech" with no extra deliberation? It's almost like the content matters.
Content does matter, in an ideal world. But in reality that type of "consideration" will be weaponised against minorities. You are arguing against yourself when you say that we just have to have "due consideration and a good decision making process" to decide what would be allowed. When said process will inherently be controlled and steered by the majority, in any democratic country. It's the type of argument that usually comes from privileged white people who have never experienced what "due consideration" means. It's a completely ridiculous premise, because it does not fit reality. Not the reality of most minorities at least.
