I think it comes down more to the debate of what makes a better society: people having the freedom to express themselves in all forms and they or society as a whole dealing with the occasional consequences of those actions. Or people not having the freedom to express themselves in all forms, with fewer occasional consequences.
To me, it’s not even a debate, really. Far more is lost societally with the latter than the former. No society can function long-term or happily with people afraid to be themselves and speak about what they believe to be true. You’re losing a building block in which societies themselves are built: communication. And if you can’t express yourself and show the world who you are and what you believe and feel about things, then you can’t truly communicate at an acceptable level. The byproduct of that is some people are going to be hurt, but it’s an acceptable trade-off. As a wise man once said: life doesn’t have solutions only trade-offs.
And let’s face it, those who want to limit speech aren’t acting in good faith, anyway. Not most of them. This isn’t like people standing up to ban screaming fire in a crowded theater, or yelling “I have a bomb!” On a plane. The people pushing for it are not acting in good faith, so no amount of limiting of speech or ideas will ever be good enough. Think of where we are now compared to where we were just a handful of years ago. A handful of years ago a common debate would be something like is it ok for someone to have the freedom to wear a swastika patch on your clothing. Free speech absolutists May find the act vile, but would still defend their right to do it. Still, it’s an interesting debate. What are we debating today? If someone saying “pregnant women” is acceptable anymore.
If we’ve fallen that far that quickly, there’s no telling where these bad faith actors will take things next. It’s about control. Not decency. And allowing bad faith actors to dictate policy will never lead anywhere good.
