I disagree. So do these folks. And RFK too:

[scribd.com]

Silencing dissenting opinions is not the answer. Censorship is as censorship does. They don't want anything interfering with their propaganda. Some folks buy into this line hook, line and sinker.

@Daryl
“poisonous and damaging dark free speech is, I do not have a problem with private entities shutting it down. It cannot be shut down in public areas where the 1st Amendment protects it.”

Okay ... I’m okay with private entities shutting it down ... within Their “Private Entities” ... one can choose to deal with those “entities” or not ...

“Try to limit dark free speech and its awesome capacity to deceive the public into accepting widespread false beliefs by the public”

Uh ... that seems directly contradictory to the second sentence; “It cannot be shut down in public areas ...”

Which is it?

I recognize the conundrum ...
I recognize your question ...
I’m pretty sure that King George thought the concept of “Free Speech” was that the Colonists were “being lied to, deceived and/or emotionally played .... so that their dark free speech-based rhetoric and actions win public support?”

Again I ask ... WHO DECIDES ... WHO DEFINES ... “Dark Free Speech”?
The answer ALWAYS seems to be “People in Power”.

Ergo ... SPEECH is either FREE or it’s NOT.

@Daryl
I’ll stop ... “ease up” on the subject ... sure. I’ll make this my last “response”.

You say ...
“There are no threats except to people like liars, tyrants and crooks. I am trying as hard as I can to be as focused and non-authoritarian as I can without advocating something completely toothless.”

I say ...
There’s frequently a very fine line in the definitions of the terms “people like ...” you espouse.
I’ve watched this conversation for some 45 plus years and there’s ALWAYS someone ... or entity ... that wants to claim the “high (moral) ground” ... that wants to be the final arbiter of what “Truth” is ... what “immoral” is ... what represents “crime”...
Sometimes they even “mean well” and are “honestly trying to do the right thing” and, so far, throughout all of history including during my short life, they turn out to be as bad as whatever they are against ... only from a different point of view.

Do I see “threats” in what you say? In your point of view?
Maybe sort of ...
What you’re saying is not new.
You present it as a completely logical thought process ... sort of.
It even seems well intentioned ... and I would give you the total benefit of the doubt.

It is the type of thing all sorts of people can get behind and champion ... especially due it’s obvious Good Intentions.

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions ...
Just look at Engel, Marx, Tolstoy, Lenin ... do you think any of them thought they were “creating a monster” with their thoughts or ideaology?

I’m finished ...

@Daryl So speech on the Intellectual Dark Web is not Dark Free Speech--I apologize, that is a distinction that is easily missed. On this forum the two would be particularly easy to conflate--suggest you just stick with Lies and Disinfo or other more common terms. And what is meaningless about the Weinsteins' definition of IDW: "What Eric was saying in coining the term Intellectual Dark Web is really that this is an intellectually unpoliced space, that it is a space outside of what he calls the "gated institutional narrative," which are the stories that we are supposed to believe. It is a very interesting conversation precisely because nobody involved in it believes in those rules. In fact, I think everybody associated with the Intellectual Dark Web is sort of constitutionally resistant to being told what questions they're allowed to think about or what answers they might be allowed to advance. So, in any case, the idea of the Intellectual Dark Web is a space that is intellectually free, at a moment in which the mainstream intellectual space is increasingly constrained by things like what we were talking about before."
[reason.com]

And who will be the arbiter of what is "false information"--ultimately it must be us as individuals, not the State nor the controllers of the public forums, for to allow that would be a death knell to liberty and individualism and even to the Republic. But I do see if you are "coining" a new term you can define it how you wish. But again, "Dark Free Speech" versus "free speech on the Intellectual Dark web"--really have to be careful that your new term is not misunderstood .

@Daryl
Ummmm ... I don’t know about you having “coined the term” unless you did it a couple/few years ago because IDW is certainly not the first place I’ve run into it.

I mean, I’d like to believe I “coined” the name “Occasional Cortex” as a play on AOC’s name and obvious Mental State ... when I first heard of her and watched some footage of her and read some of her “opinions”.
I said, to myself, Ah-Ha!!! That dimwit isn’t playing with a full deck!
Sometimes it seems like she knows what she’s talking about but most times it’s nonsense! It’s like she only using her brain ... sometimes ... occasionally ... Ocasio Cortez ... geez that sounds an awful lot like Occasional... and, well, the Cortex is the wrong part of the brain but ... most people recognize the Cortex as part of the brain so ... Occasional Cortex!!! And I began using it in forums like Disqus and FB and ...
I had never heard it before that I know of but I’m a bit shy about taking credit for its popularity today ...

@Daryl Isn't the way to not tolerate lies, deceit, and emotional manipulation to use our free speech to expose and refute it rather than to use force to censor it? Given that we know, we know, those same justifications will come for our speech by the powerful?

Every tyrant has used the accusation of threat and safety to do horrible things. Every single time. That is why speech is protected in our Constitution because our Founders understood this. Now when it comes to private speech platforms such as social media and such, they can do as they wish although I do not like it one bit when they censor.

That's the reason I personally (and uncharacteristically) would like to see a constitutional amendment passed giving the federal government the power and responsibility to use our tax money to create a public internet where the First Amendment does apply. In the new digital age I think our public square is as important as roads, and therefore we need our constitutional protections to apply.

@Daryl How did you survive through the Obama and HRC years?? Every thing they said and did was deceitful--and designed to give them money and power--even to the point of causing roadblocks to potential actions of the next President. Trump should be a relief for you.

@Daryl I recognize that people are not rational and it is extremely difficult to persuade people with irrational beliefs that fill a psychological need for them and are not merely objective exercises in learning the truth. But persuasion does happen. It often takes a long time and often the person doing the grunt work will not see the effect they have as the unbudging recipient of our logical arguments may not change their mind until years down the road if at all. It's difficult for sure.

But you think because of this difficulty, we should use force to silence speech we don't agree with? To exclude it by law (force)?

The immorality of that position aside and leaving aside how that position is completely antithetical to our nation and our rights and law, do you think you will be able to control how others think with your solution?

For good or bad, these "platforms" have become the public forum of the world--and when access to the public forum is denied because of different points of view--then you know that free speech no longer exists there.

@Daryl I would prefer it, if political fact checkers, such as the students of politifact, college electives courses, had to put red flags at the end of their monotonous arguments and justifications of what constitutes free speech. All the while arguing what restrictions should be placed on it. So no, I choose not to choose, any of the 3 afore mentioned. Thanks, but no thanks.