antisemitism and the limits of free speech on Twitter

So it looks like tweeting that Hitler had some good points and that the Holocaust is a lie is no longer allowed on Twitter because it incites antisemitic violence against Jewish people. When it comes to hateful and offensive antisemitic speech (including symbols), why shouldn't all the usual free speech arguments apply for allowing hate speech on a public platform like Twitter?

The Case for Hate Speech | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org)

...

In his book Freedom From Speech, FIRE president Greg Lukianoff says, “I believe the even greater failure of higher education is neglecting to teach the intellectual habits that promote debate and discussion, tolerance for views we hate, epistemic humility, and genuine pluralism.”

Why not ask ourselves how we know that the Holocaust occurred? Ideas are like muscles—they atrophy if they are not properly exercised. Which is preferable: a person who accepts the Holocaust’s historicity based exclusively on the fact that it is what they have been told, or a person who experiences doubt and examines original documents, meets people with serial numbers tattooed on their arms, and visits the death camps or the mass graves? The fundamental point of epistemic humility is that it is not enough for a person to believe the truth; they should believe the truth for the right reasons. A quotation attributed to Aristotle, and wise regardless of the original source, goes, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

Some ideas are repugnant, and some people will hold these ideas against all reason. Even so, there is something to be learned from seeing a person express such an idea, if not from the idea itself. Ken Miller, an alumnus and professor at Brown University, penned an article describing the most unforgettable speaker he ever heard at the university. The leader of the American Nazi Party, himself a Brown alumnus, had come to speak. Miller learned firsthand the charisma with which pernicious ideas could be expressed. He understood the “allure” of fascism. Such an experience afforded students a visceral understanding both of history and of their own vulnerability. It was then perhaps the speaking, and not the speech, that was of lasting value.

If such lofty academic idealism fails to persuade, perhaps the simplest reason to permit such speech is that, as FIRE’s co-founder, Harvey Silverglate, put it: “If there are Nazis in the room, I want to know who they are so that I can keep an eye on them.”

...
​

Should pro-Hitlerism be placed in a separate category of awfulness? If so, what is the justification for this special treatment?

I'm curious if there's unanimous opinion on this topic among the free speech experts and advocates here.

 

Musk has said he'll throttle the visibility/reach of tweets that promote "negativity".

Not sure why he didn't go that route with Kanye, though.

 

The logo he tweeted out (along with the words “LOVE EVERYONE”) is from a UFO religion.

Musk used the justification that tweeting the logo incites violence. Maybe one could see it that way given the context of that crazy InfoWars interview. Still seems like a stretch. I think Musk was feeling pressure to boot him off, and decided this gave him the opportunity to do so.

 

Not an Elon thread. Stick to the topic, please.