When a norm is violated publicly, it threatens the common knowledge that the norm exists and is enforced. The resulting public punishment, like a digital-age pillory, isn't just about the transgressor; it's a signal to the entire community that the norm is still in effect, thereby restoring common knowledge.

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.

Contrary to the belief that banning a book increases its sales (the Streisand effect), the current wave of book bans is successfully creating a chilling effect. This leads to decreased sales and access for authors, particularly those from marginalized groups.

Instead of shutting down disruptive individuals, musician Jacob Collier disarms them by 'radically incorporating' their outburst. By making the entire group repeat the heckler's idea, he validates them, dissolves their disruptive power, and brings them back into the collective.

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.

The rise of peer-to-peer communication and transparency is dissolving the credibility of centralized institutions (governments, media). These institutions can no longer maintain a facade of perfection as their flaws are constantly exposed, leading to a crisis of authority in society.

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.

The value of free speech is a practical mechanism for progress. Open debate allows bad ideas to be discarded and good ideas to be refined through opposition. In contrast, censorship protects flawed ideas from scrutiny, freezes society in ignorance, and requires violent enforcement to suppress dissent.