From English teacher August Meyrat at The Federalist:
To have more success, free speech advocates should stop seeing this issue through a strictly political lens and start considering it as a moral problem. The arguments people give against free speech have to do more with a nebulous goal of combatting evil (in the vein of Google’s old motto: “Don’t be evil”) than a conscious plan to reengineer society and minimize dissent, like China or Cuba. In other words, this has less to do with the ideas of Enlightenment political philosophers and more to do with God’s choice to make mankind free.
Unfortunately, the more successful the suppression of speech, the more apparent it is that speech becomes meaningless as a result. Artificially removing certain arguments or words will eventually make all arguments and words suspect.
This would still be the case if those with a conservative agenda silenced the other side. In a society where everyone abides by a script, hides their thoughts, and puts on a façade of validation and affirmation, speaking and listening—and by extension, reading and writing—would be a pointless exercise. Whether the speaker was telling the truth or not, he would still be lying because he is conforming to a narrative outside himself rather than the reality of his thoughts
Right. Precisely what progressives want. When everyone is lying, they find people easier to control. Was there something else we wanted to know?
So much of the polarization and division afflicting society today is a direct result of restricting speech.
In the short term, contrary to expectations, this silencing creates more chaos than peace. Those who dissent will resort to other means to speak out. They will protest; they will create their own counter-narrative; they will move to the other extreme; or they will vote for the most charismatic leader they can find. In response, those who sought to dominate the conversation will do even more to end it, pumping out fake news, vilifying free speech advocates, and refusing to present opposing views. More.
Which, in turn, justifies crackdowns on civil liberties.
Reality check: It is a moral problem for sure. The moral problem is created by voting for progressives.
Potted history: Arts faculties decades ago eviscerated the knowledge they could offer in favour of identity politics and their grievance-driven curricula. They graduate people with few skills related to the current workplace. Those people are still angry and – in particular – angry at people who are needed and valued because they have skills the world needs,. Of course they want to shut them up. That’s just for starters.
See also: Opposition to Unite the Right is about building a narrative for future use. People with little else to show for their lives can at least say they shouted back at a handful of fascists.