Late to the party as always, but anyway…
Agreeing to regulate speech which promotes unacceptably damaging outcomes seems like a good idea in principle. The problem is that one person’s unacceptably damaging consequences are not someone else’s.
For example, if I did decide to start shutting people up, I’d probably start with the 9/11 Truth Movement. In general, they use dishonest and distorted propaganda to try and make the public believe that there is no threat from terrorism, and that we should blame someone else (it usually ends up as the Jews). The consequences to our national security seem to trump any value in the speech itself (which any expert could easily demolish). I don’t see any real harm in, say, alcohol advertising on TV. We either need to appoint some body to decide which speech to regulate (which I would find chillingly totalitarian) or simply rely on the opinion of the majority (which is disturbingly like mob rule to me, and will probably see all sorts of speech banned that the advocates of the policy at the start wouldn’t think of). In addition, there’s the whole problem of turning people into martyrs by trying to shut them up.
Finally, if you give people power to do something good, they can easily use that power to do something evil. I have no desire at all for anyone to have the power to stop me expressing my opinions, and so I can hardly someone holding that power over someone else.
Ultimately, I draw the line at misleading and deceptive advertising (which is objectively wrong no matter what way you look at it), treason and actually inciting violence. Everything else should be legal and unrestricted.
I (mostly) agree with you, but here's my issue: it's one thing to proclaim that the Nazis have the right to march so long as they are a marginalized, despised fringe group. Assume, however, that the Nazi party in America is seriously a growing force, and they have a very simple message - all Jews and gays in America (for starters) must be relocated, exterminated, or both. For how long are you willing to fight for their "inalienable" right to free speech? Is there some point - at which 10, 30, 50, 70 percent of the population is persuaded by that message - where you'd feel that they should no longer have the right to express that message?
I’ll answer this as well seeing as I agree with yov.
Quite simply, no. If most of the population is willing to buy into this message in the first place, then we’re screwed anyway. Simply shutting them up won’t change anything. And as CG acknowledges, if they were in a majority, then they could quite as easily shut down their opposition, and what’s good enough for the goose has to be good enough for the gander.
Person A's right to be a hateful bigot simply doesn't trump Person B's right not to be the victim of bigotry.
A ‘victim of bigotry’ in what way? If they’re suffering from some sort of concrete disadvantage (eg: racial discrimination or violence) then I agree. However, simply stopping someone from expressing an opinion won’t help any in my view. You won’t make bigots any less bigoted by not letting them talk.
Company A's right to sell Alcohol doesn't trump Individual B's right to protect their children from damaging advertising.
Person A’s right to read the Harry Potter books doesn’t trump person B’s right to protect their children from the influence of witchcraft. Prove me wrong
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
.
As to advertising in general, it takes someone to make a conscious decision to actually buy and use the product (or follow the advice). Advertising on its own can’t actually hurt anybody, and I’m quite happy to let people make their own bad decisions. If we can’t trust people to do that, how do we trust them to vote for the Government?