I do believe in the free exchange of ideas, the right to oppose government etc. All the usual concerns about who watches the watchers, abuse of power if granted censorship rights etc etc etc, are perfectly valid.
But the notion that free speech necessarily promotes positive progression in an honest marketplace of ideas, or the discovery of 'truth', seems naive and really quite outdated.
Remind me - how often have censors turned out to be the good guys?
How often have censors "[promoted] an honest marketplace of ideas or the discovery of 'truth'"?
We have experience with censorship. Free speech may not be perfect but the alternatives have been worse.
Why will this time be different?
> Free speech may not be perfect but the alternatives have been worse.
Define free speech. Define censorship. Is the action of private citizens or businesses declining to propagate your words censorship? A lot of people seem to think so these days.
> How often have censors "[promoted] an honest marketplace of ideas or the discovery of 'truth'"?
Define who is a censor? Because if you consider (for instance) moderators on internet services 'censors' then the answer to that is "a lot", by getting rid of trolls, spammers and shitposters.
The terms of the debate are important, and trotting around saying "Free Speech! No censorship!" is not really very useful most of the time, when people are constantly changing the definition of both.
However, the US Govt has asked Facebook, Twitter, et al to close accounts, remove posts, etc.