The ultimate test of free speech is allowing potentially harmful ideas to circulate. While this may lead to negative consequences, it is preferable to the alternative. The 20th century saw 200 million people killed by their own governments, demonstrating that the tyranny required to enforce narrative control is a far greater danger.

By openly admitting your inconsistencies while still advocating for a principle, you remove the deceptive claim to unearned status that angers people. This vulnerability prevents a 'gotcha' moment and fosters a more honest conversation, building trust and allowing imperfect people to advocate for important causes.

A savvy political strategy involves forcing opponents to publicly address the most extreme statements from their ideological allies. This creates an impossible purity test. No answer is good enough for the fringe, and any attempt to placate them alienates the mainstream, effectively creating a schism that benefits the opposing party.

Attempts to shut down controversial voices often fail. Instead of disappearing, suppressed ideas can fester and become more extreme, attracting an audience drawn to their defiance and ultimately strengthening their movement.

Legal frameworks to punish 'hate speech' are inherently dangerous because the definition is subjective and politically malleable. Advocating for such laws creates a tool that will inevitably be turned against its creators when political power shifts. The core principle of free speech is protecting even despicable speech to prevent this tyrannical cycle.

When people can no longer argue, disagreements don't vanish but fester until violence becomes the only outlet. Protecting even offensive speech is a pragmatic necessity, as open debate is the only mechanism that allows societal pressures to be released peacefully.

True independent thinking requires the ability to disagree, even with your heroes. A powerful test of this 'disagreeability' is to identify the person you admire most—a podcaster, creator, or thinker—and clearly articulate a specific point on which you diverge from their views. This prevents intellectual subservience.

To achieve intellectual integrity and avoid echo chambers, don't just listen to opposing views—actively try to prove them right. By forcing yourself to identify the valid points in a dissenter's argument, you challenge your own assumptions and arrive at a more robust conclusion.

While both the Biden administration's pressure on YouTube and Trump's threats against ABC are anti-free speech, the former is more insidious. Surreptitious, behind-the-scenes censorship is harder to identify and fight publicly, making it a greater threat to open discourse than loud, transparent attacks that can be openly condemned.