This is a relatively shallow way of looking at it and contrary to what the biggest free speech advocates believed.

I mean, again, I’m not an advocate of free speech.

Even clearly wrong ideas have merit in being expressed.

If only to show the shadow they cast, thereby outlining what truth might actually be. Yes, I can understand that.

But that’s happened here, quite enough already. There is no merit to FE, or any further discussion of it. [Mill] would have advocated banning FE content because it’s not true speech at all. It’s not being put out there for legitimate debate or even security, or pursuit. It’s a disruptive act, a psyop. that’s aimed at disrupting free speech that poses a political threat.

Absolutely. Hear hear.