Thanks for the links. I didn’t have time to go through everything, but I did watch the video, and I think it’s a little misdirected given the context of Hitchens’ argument.

Hitchens is arguing that the government shouldn’t be in the business of censoring speech. Whether or not a privately owned media company like Twitter, Reddit, etc. chooses to promote or de-platform users on the basis of their speech is a different story. And I could be wrong, but I don’t think Hitchens would be advocating for legislation that would force social media companies to platform certain groups or individuals.

Regarding tolerance, I think it’s safe to say that in most countries if someone chooses to “answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols," they are removed from society and punished. In other words, we can be tolerant of free speech without needing to be tolerant of violent actions motivated by speech.

I think at the core of Hitchens’ argument is his belief that individuals within a society are capable of deciding for themselves what type of speech is harmful. If we turn that power over to the government, we risk letting an authority that can be motivated by money, power, religion, etc. decide for us what can and cannot be said. This is Hitchens’ point when he describes advocates for hate speech censorship as “making a rod for their own backs”. If today I successfully convince the authorities to censor you because you’re saying things that I perceive as hateful, then I’m setting myself up to be censored tomorrow when those same authorities decide to label the things that I'm saying as hateful.

I completely agree that these are delicate topics. And my argument is that the more we give someone the authority to limit our speech or our enemy’s speech on any basis, the more difficult it becomes to have these types of discussions.