> free expression requires absolutely no limits

But doesn't it?

Usually it's the authoritarians, dictators and generally "bad guys" who need to limit speech, censor, burn books, etc.

Society isn’t a system we can reason about in absolutes. The spirit of the law says that you can’t tell “fire!” in a crowded building, I think we collectively agree that there are limitations on free speech and we’re fortunate to let the courts map out the nuance rather than a mob or a dictator.

Nothing is absolute... but for example, in my country (former socialist one), things like affirmative action would be considered very racist, while some countries (mostly USA) consider affirmative action anti-racist. If I argue with an american about this, which one of us is racist, and who decides that when it comes to censorship?

You seem to have put your finger on one of the more nuanced issues that the OP suggested courts can resolve.

Which courts? American ones, that approve of affirmative action, or ours here, that don't?

Do you really need courts to settle a verbal (well.. written) argument online?

Yes, it's just one of many examples where cultural differences cause issues, and where two people consider themselves "good" and the other one "bad" and in turn, censor all speech, since both are racist in atleast some of the courts.

Some of us appreciate that the internet effectively allows for discussion that is less popular in their own country.

> The spirit of the law says that you can’t tell “fire!” in a crowded building

Of course you can. Especially if there's a fire.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

Very interesting, thank you. I’m taking a law class at a local community college and have a research paper due next week- I think this is going to be my topic.

Humanity has never had to deal with global echo chambers where individuals who are mostly harmless on their own can come together and feed on their common rancor.

> Humanity has never had to deal with global echo chambers where individuals who are mostly harmless on their own can come together and feed on their common rancor.

Do you not realize that "echo chamber" describes this place, and any place with groupthink enforcement mechanisms (voting, karma, flagging, and excessive moderation) much more accurately than 4chan? For example, HN groupthink has endorsed low-carb and ketogenic diets almost since its inception, and as a consequence, has also promoted the dissemination of dangerous health misinformation, like LDL cholesterol denialism and downplaying the risks of excessive sodium and satrated fat consumption.

I must have missed the last time HNers convinced themselves to start a race war by murdering a bunch of people.

I think that fat and cholesterol have killed more people than any kind of race war in the last decade.

> you’re not actually interested in reducing radicalization.

Could you perhaps share some studies of effective ways to reduce radicalization? I highly doubt “not visiting or posting on 4chan” is one of them.