The problem with such reflexive absolutism, as I've pointed out many times, is that you end up advocating for the speech rights of people who are advocating for genocide. I shouldn't need to point out that killing people also terminates their speech rights and that advocacy of genocide is thus an attack on free speech.
You do not have to defend the free speech rights of people who are themselves attacking free speech (and free life). In fact, it is foolish to do so.
Advocating for the end of a state is not the same as advocating for the eradication of a people.
Someone can firmly believe that the existence of the state of Israel is a mistake that should be corrected while still also believing that the Jewish people have every right to their own existence and freedom of religion.
If someone argued against existence of Ukraine, we'd normally understand their position as hostile to Ukrainians, and definitely one that ignores everything they want or deserve. This isn't different, except it also ignores the historical context to an absurd degree, not just the current context
> Someone can firmly believe that the existence of the state of Israel is a mistake that should be corrected while still also believing...
In theory, someone might distinguish between opposing the state of Israel and supporting Jewish rights. But in practice, that distinction tends to collapse. History shows that denying Jews a national homeland often leads to denying their safety and identity as well. Before 1948, Jews were stateless and vulnerable, culminating in the Holocaust. After Israel's founding, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries where they had lived for centuries. Efforts like the 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism blurred the line between criticism of Israeli policy and rejection of Jewish nationhood. During the Second Intifada, what began as political resistance often turned into violence targeting civilians and Jewish institutions. More recently, anti-Zionist protests have featured explicitly anti-Jewish chants like "Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahud," invoking historical violence. The Western assumption that "Free Palestine" implies peaceful self-determination doesn't reflect the goals of many movements where "freedom" often means dismantling Israel entirely and expelling Jews or allowing them to live only in a state of dhimmitude. In reality, it's nearly impossible to separate these ideas cleanly.
I bet you're thinking you're really clever with that context switch. I was actually talking about nazis, because posts above were complaining about left-wing cancel culture getting people fired from their jobs which is the sort of consequence that happened to quite a few extremely online nazis over the last decade.
Who taught you to argue like this? They didn't do you any favors.
Advocating for free speech does indeed mean defending the rights of people to say reprehensible things, including those who advocate for deeply offensive or dangerous ideas. But it's important to be clear-eyed about the historical record.
The Nazis did not rise because of an excess of free speech. During the Weimar Republic, there were hate speech laws and Nazi publications were censored or banned multiple times. Hitler himself was banned from public speaking in several German states in the 1920s. Despite that, the Nazi movement grew, driven not by open dialogue but by a mix of economic despair, nationalism, violent intimidation, and institutional weakness.
Far from championing free speech, the Nazis used paramilitary violence to silence opponents even before seizing power. Once in control, they moved quickly to eliminate all free expression, banning parties, censoring the press, imprisoning dissenters.
So if anything, the historical lesson is that censorship and suppression didn’t stop fascism, and that once authoritarians gain power, their first move is often to destroy free speech entirely.
Free speech is a super power. Strong free speech rights require defending the rights of terrible people to say terrible things. That doesn’t mean what they’re saying is good. It just means that it's easy to defend the rights of meaningless or popular speech, but your own right to truly speak your mind is only as strong as the rights of those you disagree with most. Someday, something you believe passionately might be seen as reprehensible by the majority.
If you don't feel bad about it you are not a defender of free speech. Eventially a line must be drawn and you have to not allow things. However it should make you uncomfortable no matter how bad thone things are.