Report comment

"I would argue that you have contradicted yourself. How else do you reconcile your view that a state determining what is and is not fair game is "sinister", with your apparent acknowledgement that there are limits to free speech? How can you have it both ways?"

Simple. What I was criticising was the imposition of 'wrongthink': the State deciding that certain opinions are objectively incorrect and so must be banned for that reasons.

Current restrictions on free speech exist for entirely different (and perfectly valid) reasons. Inciting personal violence, for example, is banned for the entirely legitimate purpose of preventing others suffering personal injury.