Thanks. I think we’re kind of on the same page. You make the point that limitations of free speech are exploitable, because they lead to a backlash harming minorities. That seems right to me. But at the same time, if you buy that sometimes hearing unpleasant people saying unpleasant things can harm people, then unlimited free speech is also exploitable — if you want to harm the minority, you just go to them and say unpleasant things about them.

So it seems like either way we’ve got a harm-causing mechanism. And I take it your view (and maybe mine) is that the harms from limiting free speech are greater than those from always allowing it? But then I think my romantic millennial can perhaps just say: “okay, well I just disagree. I think the harms from allowing are greater than the harms from limiting.” Do you think there’s any evidence or argumentation that can tell in favour of either of these views?

(I also like the thought that we shouldn’t think of free speech as a benefit. Maybe it’s like airline security — stressful, annoying, mostly in vain, but overall for the good.)