This line of thinking ignores the power of speech. Speech has real impact and it can be used to infringe on the rights of others. That is why no country fully embraces absolute free speech. We outlaw things like fraud, defamation, distribution of child porn, and all sorts of other speech because that bad speech infringes on the rights of others. When you simply ignore that bad speech, you are allowing that infringement of rights to continue. Apathy to that isn't humility. If anything, it is arrogant to suggest there is a clear line on what speech should and should not be allowed. It is an incredibly complicated issue that requires nuance.
>It’s also arrogant to believe you are an honest arbiter of what crosses the line.
Once again, this is removing the nuance of the issue. I don't think anyone would say it is arrogant to suggest that child porn crosses the line into bad speech.
And to be clear, I'm not trying to draw the line myself. I am asking that we have an open debate about that line. It is the free speech absolutists that are taking the arrogant position by refusing the debate and establishing that line themselves.
