This person is right about one thing; they don't get it.
Smarter people than me have written extensively about this.
So have people exactly as smart as me, by which I mean me.
The common mistakes are:
1) believing broadcasting and platforming are neutral activities needing no moral judgment
2) believing an unregulated marketplace of ideas— unlike any other unregulated marketplace—is immune to corruption and will select value over ease
Though I must say, to stroll through the timeline of most who fail to understand this is to experience the growing suspicion in truth they do understand this.
And in this respect, my new friend doesn't disappoint.
Before you start to speculate in the marketplace of ideas, a simple moral question to ask of yourself:
Whose money am I putting up?
Is it mine?
Who exactly is at stake in this argument?
Is it me?
Am I having a very polite conversation about someone else's humanity?
This is quite obviously true.
Within living memory we had people demonstrating angrily and violently over the idea that black people should be disallowed to share public places with white people.
The non-reprehensible position often requires a fight and a law.
This is known.
Those reprehensible people had children and taught them their reprehensible values.
And now those children want to "take their country back."
It needs a fight.
Or we can dishonor those who died creating what is fine about this country, by refusing to fight to keep it.
The 14th amendment was VERY dismissive of one side and its reprehensible ideas. Not dismissive enough, if you ask me.
So was the 19th amendment.
So was the Civil Rights Act
You can follow @JuliusGoat.