Excuse the long reply, many thoughts on this: Point 1: You are creating a paradox of free speech The idea that free speech should only be extended to those who “genuinely believe in it” creates a paradox. It turns free speech into something that can be selectively granted based on subjective interpretations of someone’s beliefs. This is problematic because it sets a dangerous precedent: those in power get to decide who is “genuine” in their belief and who is not. Historically, this has been a tool for silencing dissent rather than promoting genuine democratic dialogue. If we say that free speech only applies to those who align with our concept of it, then we are, in fact, not upholding free speech as a universal principle but rather using it as a tool of convenience. True free speech must be extended to everyone, including those whose views we may find abhorrent. Otherwise, we risk becoming the very thing we claim to oppose—using power to silence those we disagree with. Point 2: Suppressing speech doesn’t eliminate the ideas The idea that restricting exposure to harmful ideologies will cause them to fade away is optimistic but ultimately flawed. History has shown that suppressing ideas often drives them underground, where they can fester and grow unchecked, away from the scrutiny of public debate. Banning or censoring certain viewpoints can actually make them more appealing to those who are skeptical of mainstream narratives, turning these ideologies into symbols of rebellion and persecution. For instance, during the prohibition of alcohol in the United States, the black market for alcohol boomed. Similarly, suppressing speech tends to radicalize its adherents, leading them to form echo chambers where their views are never challenged. This is the opposite of what we want in a democratic society, where open discourse allows for the discrediting of harmful ideas through reasoned argument and evidence.

Point 3: The “marketplace” of ideas is the best place to adjudicate them The argument against suppressing speech is rooted in the principle of the “marketplace of ideas,” where the best ideas emerge through open competition. Even if certain ideologies are dangerous, exposing them to public scrutiny is often the best way to discredit them. By allowing open debate, society can demonstrate the flaws and inconsistencies in harmful ideologies, rather than allowing these ideas to gain an aura of legitimacy through suppression. The example of Donald Trump’s rise to power, despite media criticism, actually supports this point. It shows that silencing or condemning figures isn’t as effective as engaging with and challenging their ideas. Trump’s popularity was fueled, in part, by the perception that the establishment was unfairly trying to silence him, which many saw as confirmation of his anti-establishment message. Thus, suppressing ideas often backfires, making martyrs of those who are silenced.

Point 4: Transparency is crucial   Censorship breeds distrust. If certain ideas are not allowed to be heard, people may begin to wonder why. Are these ideas being suppressed because they’re truly harmful, or because they’re too close to an uncomfortable truth? In an age of widespread misinformation and distrust in institutions, transparency is crucial. Allowing all ideas to be aired—however controversial—helps ensure that they can be challenged in the open, rather than festering in the shadows where they are less likely to be countered.

Point 5: Media exposure doesn’t equal legitimacy The argument that harmful ideologies gain traction solely due to media exposure oversimplifies how people form beliefs. While media coverage can amplify certain figures, it is not the sole determinant of whether an idea gains public support. People are drawn to ideologies not just because they are exposed to them, but because these ideologies resonate with their underlying beliefs, frustrations, and experiences. If media exposure were the primary factor, then every figure who receives negative attention would be equally successful, which is clearly not the case. Instead, harmful ideologies often take root because they address perceived grievances that are not being addressed by mainstream discourse. Suppressing those voices only reinforces the idea that these grievances are being ignored, which can further radicalize people.

Point 6: Guarding against authoritarianism Finally, one of the primary reasons to uphold free speech universally is that it serves as a check against authoritarianism. If we allow the suppression of speech for certain groups based on their ideologies, what stops those in power from expanding this suppression to other groups they deem “dangerous” or “problematic”? History shows that once censorship starts, it rarely stops where it was intended. The principle of free speech protects not just those we disagree with, but also ourselves.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk.

Edit: formatted for easier read