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.

Making misinformation illegal is dangerous because human progress relies on being wrong and correcting course through open debate. Granting any entity the power to define absolute 'truth' and punish dissent is a hallmark of authoritarianism that freezes intellectual and societal development.

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.

The concept of "mal-information"—factually true information deemed harmful—is a tool for narrative control. It allows powerful groups to suppress uncomfortable truths by framing them as a threat, effectively making certain realities undiscussable even when they are verifiably true.

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.

Physically shouting down a speaker offers a temporary, local victory. However, the act of suppression is often recorded and shared, reaching a far larger 'audience' online. This audience frequently reacts against the suppression, giving the original message more power than it would have had otherwise.

The premise for government censorship is that the average person cannot discern truth from falsehood. This logic is self-defeating. The government officials tasked with being "watchmen" are also human and equally fallible. If humans are incapable of judging information for themselves, they are certainly incapable of judging it for others.

World-changing ideas are often stifled not by direct threats, but by the creator's own internal barriers. The fear of social exclusion, of being "flamed on Twitter," or of hurting loved ones causes individuals to self-censor, anticipating external pressures before they even materialize.