Exactly. It’s trivially easy to defend speech that we like. The difficult thing is defending the right to make speech the content of which we dislike or disagree with.

Particularly given that a large part of the left and of the medias uses the term "racist", "alt-right" or "facist" very liberally. Worrying about slippery slope isn't rhetorical, we can see people actively oiling up that slope right now.

I think most people can see that there's a huge gulf between "everything is lawful" and "the government regulates ideas and risks doing so in their favor".

Most people accept that you cannot say "how unfortunate it would be for him if Jack ate seafood tonight" to your Mafia henchmen. Nor can you say "we will storm parliament at dawn using these weapons" if you are part of a plot to replace the state with a capitalist anarchy.

And in the same manner, it seems that there are plenty of laws in place already against saying "if white people are to defend ourselves and survive as a race, our immune system must go to work" in an 8chan manifesto.

But that's different than saying "Jack has betrayed me", "representative democracy is defective and must be replaced by capitalist anarchy" or "the white race is superior; non-whites are traitors and should be dealt with harshly; vote for me".

(Whether a text advocates violence cannot necessarily be reduced to a few words, as I hope my first example demonstrates. The context in which the words are uttered and the interpretation the speaker can reasonably intend are relevant. Fortunately, no legal system has been replaced by a computer program, but are generally interpreted by intelligent human beings.)

Free speech absolutism was never intended by the Voltaire or the American founding fathers - as can be seen by their other actions. It is a recent populist view without warrant of careful analysis. I support free speech; but I do not support free speech absolutism.

I think it’s more like a black-list. Nazis? White supremacy? Pretty obviously black-list.

Is nazizm fine if the political winds change a bit? No, of course not.

And I’m not saying “blanket censor an understanding of these things in historical context”. That would be insane. But I am saying - just maybe, consider stopping giving free, entirely unregulated platforms for black-list extremists and terrorists to spread their message.

Voltaire didn’t live in a time of algorithmically influenced news cycles. Things have changed a bit. He might no longer be right.

>Because Voltaire's age was so peaceful and didn't have those things?

Voltaire wasn't a youth bullying youth to the point that they killed themselves.

Voltaire wasn't a man sitting in his living room sexually harassing and shaming women in an organized effort after they are selected as a target by some random person online for blocking them after receiving dick pics.

Voltaire wasn't encouraging anonymous strangers on the internet to make death threats to high profile persons.

And I think it’s fair to ask if those ideas, expressed hundreds of years ago, are still “100%-blanket-statement-correct”, or if they should ever be modified based on changing societal conditions.

Blind faith in a political figure from several centuries ago is, to me, as ridiculous as blind faith in an imaginary magic sky deity.

You might wanna read more about the circumstances when those words were said.

Its probably problematic to be religiously dogmatic about applying quotes from historical figures from nearly three centuries ago about every possible modern context.

...this was said in reference to being able to use the powers of legislature to serve the greater good despite private interests.

It means the exact opposite of what you think it means.

Unless we're talking about a different Voltaire, he did precisely that many times to avoid prison and execution...