Nosferatu wrote

That was essentially the point of my argument, your concern for the phrase "freedom of speech" is semantic and there's nothing that kills an argument more than semantics. My whole argument is, and was, to say that the state's clamping down on view a should be something we protest just as much as the clamping down of view b even if we agree with view b and despise view a


Nosferatu wrote

Absolutely, and it's regrettable that for whatever reason some anarchists have come to this position. We, as anarchists, understand the way the state operates, if they can ban Nazis, they can ban anarchism, if they ban pro-Zionist demos, they can ban pro-Palestinian demos. It is in this vein, that we as people who support those at the bottom of society must ensure, on principle, that the state does not interfere in the freedom speech of those who we despise. This does not mean, by any definition however, that we cannot organize in direct action, no-platforming etc. of those with dangerous views.