That's an argument for active participation in the political process and an engaged electorate, not censorship. To default to the support of censorship of what you disagree with is simply laziness (and antithetical to the fundamental principals of a democratic society). If your government and society can't withstand the free expression and discussion of unpleasant ideas, you have problems with the current implementation of government and society (and the unpleasantness isn't at fault). Masking the symptom doesn't solve the root cause.
To your example, you put misplaced blame on a propaganda machine, not uneducated, unengaged, emotional citizen voters.
I prefer a democratic society that suppresses its enemies while trying to solve the root cause to one that gets destroyed and definitely won't solve the root cause.
Can’t suppress enemies in a democratic society without violating the very rights enumerated and protected by said society. The populace itself must inoculate itself against such malicious actors with activism, intelligent discourse, critical thinking, and political engagement.
Okay, we've established you fully support the right to freedom of speech without compromise.
As a question, do you own any property? If someone planted signs in your lawn or decided to yell at you on your property, would you accept this? Any compromise would be a violation of their right to freedom of speech and you would be censoring them. Would you let them into your home lest you censor them?
Then how is Tim Pool labeled Alt Right? How is Ben Shapiro labeled Alt Right?
I'll be satisfied that the Left doesn't want to use corporate power and force to silence people, when the Left starts calling out the left for doing it.
Nazis don't support the free speech of other people, or even their freedom to exist in many cases. 'No smoking' signs in gas stations sorta restrict freedom too, don't they?
