I'm not sure what the "left" or "right" are these days. Certainly these definitions have changed in such a way as to leave the impression that there's only one axis and that there are only 2 sides. I have plenty of ideas and beliefs that now would fall on the right of the political spectrum.

I don't deny that there are people on the "left" going against free speech. As somebody born under communism, I have a similar level of disdain for extremists of all colors.

That said, you know that old saying "Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins"? Well, I think this also applies to freedom of speech. No freedom should be absolute, not when it goes in conflict with other human rights that are just as important, like the right for fair treatment and for being innocent until proven guilty. This is why the constitution of many countries, including my own, grants the freedom of speech only for as long as it's not hate speech targeted at groups based on race, ethnicity, nationality or religion. And I happen to agree with that.

There's part of the Right which is against free speech too. Has been for decades. All those campaigns against "immoral" literature, movies, music, television. The "Watch what you say" Bush Administration. The Republican-led state governments who prevent their own scientists from talking about climate change. The right-wing religious colleges which police not only what is said and done on campus, but also heavily regulate off-campus behavior as well. Even the heavy censorship and downvoting in online right wing communities and subreddits. Why these groups get a free pass from many people who yell at the left about free speech, I'll never understand.

Maybe the response will be something along the lines of "The Right is so big and covers so many people you can't blame all of them." But you could say the same about the Left. Covers many, many ideologies and sub-ideologies.

Oh, that's simple, unacceptable ideas are the ones that have historically led to genocide and hate speech qualifies.

As a human being with the capacity to understand, communicate, and reason about ideas, you are allowed to determine which ideas are acceptable and unacceptable to you. Everyone has the capacity. Ideas are have meaning, they can be analyzed, they can be judged. The fact that different people come to different judgments doesn't mean no one can judge ideas, that would be absurd. How to reconcile conflicts of ideology, that is important. Understanding why reasonable people acting in good faith can disagree on very basic questions, that is important, too. But I think throwing up one's hands and refusing to be political, refusing to judge any ideas is irrational.

And if somebody else executes their similar ability to reason through and judge ideas, and condemns ideas you think aren't worth condemning, and perhaps even suppresses that speech to the extent of their capacity, and you disagree with them, of course you are perfectly capable of disagreeing with them, resisting them, condemning them in turn, coming into conflict with people whose exercise of power has consequences you disagree with. That's what being a human being is.

> So we deny them the privilege of debate, because we're afraid that if they get into power, they'll deny us the privilege of debate?

Well, yes. Why is that invalid reasoning? If you analyze the content and aims of fascist ideology, what other judgment could you come to? There are people out there who are very outspoken about what they would do to people like you and me if they were in power and we crossed them.

Nazi science sneers at your bad analogies.

I hear marijuana is a gateway drug too.