> We limit speech already, you can't advocate for the killing of other people, races, etc...
Actually, not that I support such behavior but (at least in the US) you can generally advocate for it. People usually don't (thankfully) so I don't have any examples immediately to hand, but my understanding is that the legal test is "imminent lawless action". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)
> free speech is the solution to all democratic problems, it's not an absolute good
Rather than an absolute good, I would argue that it ought to be viewed as an absolute right. I would also argue that, whether used for good or ill, free political speech is a functional necessity of any democracy. (Necessary but not sufficient and all that.)
> in a way censorship might be already happening. In this case non-arousing messages are being suppressed
Agreed, but it's a separate issue and I've no idea what anyone is actually supposed to do about it.
Actually, not that I support such behavior but (at least in the US) you can generally advocate for it. People usually don't (thankfully) so I don't have any examples immediately to hand, but my understanding is that the legal test is "imminent lawless action". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)
> free speech is the solution to all democratic problems, it's not an absolute good
Rather than an absolute good, I would argue that it ought to be viewed as an absolute right. I would also argue that, whether used for good or ill, free political speech is a functional necessity of any democracy. (Necessary but not sufficient and all that.)
> in a way censorship might be already happening. In this case non-arousing messages are being suppressed
Agreed, but it's a separate issue and I've no idea what anyone is actually supposed to do about it.