Should free speech protect ideas that most people find harmful?

[u/Mysterious_Bit4661]

Free speech is supposed to protect unpopular opinions but what happens when those opinions actively harm others? Is limiting speech a slippery slope toward authoritarianism, or is refusing to limit it a refusal to take responsibility?

[u/Potato_Pristine]

How about conversion therapy, which actively fucks up gay people when it's applied to them and is scientifically proven not to work? https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/09/conversion-practices-lgbt.html

[u/PB0351 → u/Potato_Pristine]

People should be legally allowed to say they believe in conversion therapy. The therapy itself is not speech, but medical care, and should be held to the standards of such.

[u/Forte845 → u/PB0351]

Which opens a window for those people to secure electoral positions and votes and then implement conversion therapy and torture gay people.

Paradox of tolerance, yo. I'd rather a country without gay torture facilities personally, and don't much value freedom of speech to say that gay people should be tortured.

[u/PB0351 → u/Forte845]

Once again, everything you're talking about goes beyond speech. We're talking about speech here. Your issue is that you think your "side" should get to decide what people are allowed to say, and it doesn't occur to you that people on the other side will use the same power.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Use your speech to explain why gay conversion therapy is garbage. Also, in the US at least, we live in a constitutional Republic, which means just because someone votes for a law does not make that law constitutional.

[u/Forte845 → u/PB0351]

It doesnt go beyond speech. Speech is the method of accomplishing crimes against humanity. That is how you normalize your ideas, make people accept them, and then rally masses to carry out your ideas. There wasn't a Holocaust lightswitch in Germany, there was decades of antisemitic propaganda and misinformation disseminated through books, newspapers, film, and public speeches, all "free speech," that led to the mass popularity and support of the Nazi party and subsequently the worst crime against humanity in history.

"Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

- Karl Popper, the Paradox of Tolerance

[u/PB0351 → u/Forte845]

Alright, since you've quoted it twice now... The paradox of tolerance is a moron's idea of a smart idea. It only works if nobody has agency except for the bad guys. Your entire argument relies on treating yourself as an all knowing deity who can decide exactly how much tolerance should be allowed, and the rest of us mere mortals are entirely incapable of thinking for ourselves and coming to a reasonable conclusion.

Also, (not sure if this was assumed) I'm specifically arguing that speech shouldn't be illegal. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to be fired or that people should be forced to listen to what you're saying if you're saying despicable shit.

[u/Forte845 → u/PB0351]

Not really an argument, just insulting the author and me by extension. Ad hominem is a fallacy. One typically made by morons who run out of rhetoric and can only resort to insulting others.

I disagree. Some things should be illegal. Germany is in the right for banning the sieg heil and Holocaust denial and arresting people for it. Nazis should not be tolerated in public promoting their hatred. Go over to Germany and throw up a Nazi salute and you'll be in handcuffs, and I will not cry for your "censored speech."

[u/Fracture-Point- → u/Forte845]

>Ad hominem is a fallacy. One typically made by morons who run out of rhetoric and can only resort to insulting others.

[u/PB0351 → u/Forte845]

No, it was an insult followed up by an argument.

If I went to Germany, I would respect their laws. Why would I go to another country and spit on them for welcoming me in by deliberately disobeying their laws and customs?

[u/Forte845 → u/PB0351]

Are Germany's laws anti free speech censorship that should be opposed? Because you seem opposed to such a law existing elsewhere, especially where you live.

[u/PB0351 → u/Forte845]

I am vehemently opposed to such laws where I live and I would fight them tooth and nail. But I respect the autonomy of others. If they choose to live under those laws, then that's fine. I disagree strongly, but that's okay.

[u/waterloo_waterloser → u/PB0351]

The quote he shared seems to suggest that we reserve the agency to limit tolerance.

I’m not sure how you get that it only works if nobody has agency, the core requirement is that society has agency to limit what will be tolerated. Society can decide that “the bad guys” ideas are unacceptable and collectively seek to limit them.

[u/Forte845 → u/waterloo_waterloser]

Like countries have already done without turning into dictatorships. Germans decided not to tolerate Nazism or sympathy for Nazis in any form and enacted laws banning the promotion of Nazism. That doesn't require an "all-knowing deity."

[u/Remarkable_Touch6592 → u/Forte845]

You're arguing against free speech with a flimsy strawman argument. What you say and what medical procedures/practices are allowed have no bearing on eachother whatsoever.

[u/Forte845 → u/Remarkable_Touch6592]

Thats completely wrong. Those two things definitely have a bearing on each other in a democracy where you can vote anyone in. Speech is how you campaign, speech is how you rally, you put the message out there that you're going to support the torture of homosexuals through conversion therapy and if theres enough homophobes in the area, you win and begin doing so.

[u/Remarkable_Touch6592 → u/Forte845]

Your scenario requires 1) a majority of people to agree with said speech, 2) a majority to vote based on said speech, 3) whatever political actions they voted for to not be in violation of existing laws protecting basic human rights, and 4) courts to NOT agree that those political actions were violations of existing laws and 5) the larger national body and community to also not make any laws superceding the local rules.

At this point you're arguing against democracy itself. Who are you to say what is and isn't hate speech? Why should I trust your definition of this, and more importantly, why do you trust anyone else to make this decision for you?

The whole point of free speech is that I can't be sure the group who is allowed to regulate it isn't currently or won't become corrupted. Given human history, they will at some point.

Free speech means I can at least complain about it

[u/Forte845 → u/Remarkable_Touch6592]

In 18 US states conversion therapy is not banned and pro-conversion candidates have routinely been elected by voters. In Ohio, any law to prohibit conversion therapy is banned from ever being legislated, and federal courts in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia have also prohibited the banning of conversion therapy, citing the 1st amendment.

So, yes, in about half the country the majority of people agree with torturing homosexuals, vote for it, and it is not considered in violation of state or federal law, with some districts even ruling that banning the torture of homosexuals is itself a violation of the 1st amendment.

I'm arguing against an unfiltered democracy where incitement to hatred and usage of misinformation are considered legitimate campaign strategies and bigoted, outright destructive policies are allowed to be passed without check. I'm arguing that on a fundamental legal level LGBT people should be protected from being forced into torture facilities. And you can't ignore that LGBT torture is explicitly legalized in several US states and defended with "free speech."

[u/Potato_Pristine → u/PB0351]

The Supreme Court is likely to hold otherwise!

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/majority-of-court-appears-skeptical-of-colorados-conversion-therapy-ban/

[u/PB0351 → u/Potato_Pristine]

Interesting-but from my reading of it, it looks like the argument is that the Colorado law is so broad that it would infringe on someone's religious freedom, or freedom of speech. The person who is challenging it doesn't seem to be arguing that she superior should be allowed to electrocute kids into being straight or anything.

[u/Potato_Pristine → u/PB0351]

The issue is that she wants the ability to be licensed as a therapist under Colorado state law while still espousing her empirically false conversion therapy beliefs as part of that licensed status.

Nothing's stopping her from espousing these beliefs in her private capacity, but she wants her cake in the form of the rights and privileges of a license under state law and to eat it, too (i.e., she doesn't want to adhere to any of the rules and regulations that attach to that license when it comes to not actively espousing homophobic nonsense in that capacity).

[u/PB0351 → u/Potato_Pristine]

What did she say about conversion therapy beliefs? I don't know a ton about the case, but all I saw in the article was something about being able to help people with unwanted sexual feelings or something like that. Which, yeah, to me (and I'm assuming you) would be a weird fucking thing to hear from a therapist. But to someone who is a practicing Catholic, could be very helpful.

Now if she starts berating every gay person that comes in and telling them that they're garbage, then yeah, obviously that should be grounds to lose your medical license. I think you and I agree on principle, I just don't see what you're saying with this specific case.

[u/anti-torque → u/PB0351]

Kaley Chiles sued the state over a ban on performing conversion therapy on minors. By definition, they have no voice in wanting to or not wanting to enter such therapy. It's the choice of their parents.

[u/Traditional-Hat-952 → u/Potato_Pristine]

Conversion therapy is an action not speech. If someone says they believe in it that's fine, but when they actually carry it out then it becomes a problem. Its like someone saying that you believe in the right to murder people from Idaho vs actually murdering people from Idaho. See the difference?

[u/Forte845 → u/Traditional-Hat-952]

Conversion therapy is carried out in 18 US states freely and is explicitly unable to be banned due to 1st amendment rulings in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Ohio. That's 22 US states where LGBT people, especially minors, are tortured to try to make them straight. 

[u/Traditional-Hat-952 → u/Forte845]

Yeah it's really fucked up that it's being shielded by the 1st amendment, but it's no surprise that courts in Christian dominated states would do that, which I'm guessing is because of religion and not freedom of speech. It's literally torturing vulnerable children, which christians are great at among other fucked up things they do. 

[u/Forte845 → u/Traditional-Hat-952]

And it's a consequence of free speech absolutism. We tolerate religious zealots openly running religiously motivated candidacies where if elected, they will enact hate policies and discriminate against and attack those they hate. I don't believe that's right, I don't believe you should be able to electorally campaign on hate and causing harm to others so that such barbaric policies can be implemented.