This is a really pertinent topic for me as facilitator/developer of this site. The comments so far on this thread suggests that the majority of the members of this site are thinking types who value the ability to express themselves without (as much) fear of being banned. As an online community, we are not free speech absolutists in that we have conversation guidelines that require civility... while allowing for some normal hotheadedness. Even with this guideline in place, Google has banned our app from their app store with no way for appeal (as in all bans)... fortunately, we didn't build this site to be app dependent.

As far as all opinions being equal, I'd put those that are based on cited facts above speculation, those that explore causes above symptoms, and those communicated with solutions above derision. At some point, perhaps we could find some way to highlight members who gain peer respect... until then, we just have "likes".

It's a good idea to separate the person from the statement. Criticise ideas rather than the person with that idea, as it can be a distraction.
As far as censorship goes, i think it should be down to the individual to self censor to what ever degree they're comfortable with.

There is such a thing as absolute truth but it's not absolutely what we might think it is. The danger is that we might agree the truth needs to be censored because it is offensive to 'Community Standards' or is not conducive to an unquestioned ideology. No posts are equal, but the spectrum actually is their plausibility. 'Respect' might be dependent upon whether you're Mark Twain or Christopher Hitchens in speaking on the topic of religion. But keep in mind, the dead had opinions they kept to themselves. The world might not can handle the truth, which is tragic.

Ideas should be out in the open. If you don’t like it, walk the fuck on..or engage and debate, whatever, but censoring it doesn’t do anyone any good. Stupid ideas need criticism for being stupid, and good ideas need criticism to make them better.

As Blackout stated, censorship is not about protecting people, it’s just about power and control. Today’s marxist censorship in the US provides a glaring example that most have seen: pedophiles are allowed to argue that they’re normal, while doctors are censored for questioning obviously questionable positions on the ‘rona and its treatment. Yea, that makes sense.

When we humans are not raised among fellow citizens who learn internal restraint, the Exterior restraints will have to be applied. The block button, works on a personal level. But, as we see in our Cities where the unrestrained are encourage, it takes more and more force to stop the humans without self control. It is up to us to choose the individual block button. Or some one has to be the censor! This is the road we are watching happen for our large Social networks. The centralized censorship should be the end of the line choice. With our population, now, Censorship is inevitable. It is the sign, our ideas about Liberal Democracy's have been pushed to the point of failure.

I believe there are two issues when I see people talking about free speech. We always bring up censorship but why do we want to censor? Why is it important to censor anything? I'm assuming it's to say that what is being displayed is harmful or does not represent a platform/company etc. When we censor, we are actually giving it importance and it is now highlighted with attention that it may not deserve. This feeds into the narrative of "words are dangerous" but they aren't. Words are all in how we interpret them individually...so we personally decide if words are offensive. Ultimately, unless it is a threat of action, words do not hurt us. I've said it before, I do not care if someone says something racist or offensive, even if it's directed at myself because that is their problem, not mine.

The second issue is the concept of everyone's opinion matters...when in reality they don't. My opinion only matters to myself, that's it. Now, if you choose to have my opinion matter to you, that is your choice but the idea that every person that has a keyboard and a opinion is now the arbiter of some ideological truths is absolutely silly. We all think we know everything and there are very few of us who are willing to admit when we are wrong. Even the idea of being wrong is at times subjective because what I consider wrong is based on opinion that probably can't be provable. Either way, my opinion doesn't matter unless you want it to matter. Once we realize that opinions are like assholes, then we will stop caring if an opinion is censored or not.

I am a free speech absolutist, which for me means that everyone has a right to an opinion and everyone else has a right to agree or disagree with that opinion in open debate. I loathe antisemitism and all forms of racism and bigotry - I don't treat people who post such trash with the same respect as I treat people who post reasonable and well thought out arguments. Usually I ignore or block them entirely. But I do not feel I have the right to censor anyone completely, and truthfully, I would rather have these opinions 'out there' so they can be thoroughly debunked in debate by folks who are far more articulate than I am. If Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro were to debate a goon like Richard Spencer they would show him for the fool he was. A few years back a guy named Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right BNP and genuine UK neo-nazi, was humiliated on British TV for his idiotic views. People saw him for what he was and very little was heard of him after. Education is the silver bullet for ignorance, and we can not learn anything if we silence and de-platform people we disagree with, no matter how much we may oppose their opinions. Just my opinion.

The best thing is that you/we don't have to indulge any content that comes down the pike - we just can't attack the people who say things we recognize as well, just stupid, crass, pedestrian nonsense.
My way of dealing with this kind of content is to merely block the person(s) who post such content. Thank goodness for that option!
I will say that about 3 months ago(maybe?) I noticed what seemed to be a sudden influx of users/content that was just too stupid, too extreme (especially the Jew hatred - blame the Jews for everything...) content.
Did this perceived sudden influx of nonsense coincide with or have anything to do with the overlapping of Slug and IDW? Maybe it did.
I have used my "Block" button more times in the last 2 or three months than in all previous months combined.
We do have to "tolerate" all posts at least initially because they all go into one main page where we are forced to wade through EVERY post regardless its worthiness - IMHO. Whenever I came across posts I found to be just stupid and objectionable I immediately Block that user so I won't have to deal with them further. This seems to be the only remedy to the subject of your complaint - I am on your side!
Use the Block button - it'll relieve some of your angst.

Can we have an island of reasonable discourse in an age of vituperation? Are there kinds of discourse too extreme in a site founded as a rejection of censorship? Good questions are often hard questions.

I believe attacks on Jews as a culture or a religion are repellant. Then again, I come from a background where Jews were the custodians of God's revelations and the focus of His prophecies. Other people do not. So I dispute what I see as anti-Semitic assertions, state my arguments and move on. As Henry VIII's court stated, let the winds of doctrine blow, let truth and falsehood grapple in the field.

We are not an intellectual monoculture. I appreciate this deeply. As a site founded in reaction to liberal censorship, we are generally conservative. Liberal and leftist users state their arguments openly here. This is important. I will complain if it descends into ad hominim or open obscenity.

It's up to every individual to intelligently interact with the world. If you find comments offensive you can decide to ignore it or try and wash it away with your own comments. If enough people react negatively sometimes those that are offending you will try to find a new audience.

That said in the cancel culture age website owners run the risk of being deplatformed or worse if they don't censor comments. You have to pick your battles. I was recently censored on another website for suggesting AntiFa and BLM resemble nothing more than a troop of Chimpanzees looking for Nazis and Nazis a troop of Chimpanzees looking for Jews. I was not particularly offended that my post was removed but I formally complained about being labeled a rascist and told I needed to study history. I dropped it because the moderator clearly didn't understand the evolutionary psychology I was presenting.

Every ethnicity is worthy of critique and there is nothing wrong with conspiracy theories as long as they are not presented as conspiracy facts. When I was younger the terms kikes, wops, micks, wasp, kraut, spic, limey, etc. could be heard in "polite" company. Sometimes the ethnic stereotypes were even reasonable descriptive. That said the idea that society could be more polite doesn't seem like a bad one. If critiques are made in good faith and are constructive criticism even if they are offensive over generalizations I see no problem. Unfortunately most people don't feel that way. People take their group identities too seriously. If you want to discuss group differences perhaps it would be best to use the anthropological and sociological context and statistical data. Broad sweeping terms that ignore ethnic differences within various traditional group designations should be avoided. For example specify the social economic status, political affiliation, religion, educational level, and genetics of the ethnicity you are trying to define.

There should be some rules on public discourse, i.e. no virtue signaling. I learned the power of this and that of personal attack while watching "Politically Incorrect" back in the 90s. Furthermore, "Meet the Press" needs to canceled or investigated.

The NPC meme struck to my core. 10 - 20 years back progressive friends would react to any bad news with: "It's the Joooooooos!"
If you hand a yappy dog a megaphone you know exactly what they will say. Every debate attack the Jews, blacks, whites, etc whatever their fixation is. After reading one comment I know the basics of every comment to come and I hate giving the yappy dog the megaphone. I hate listening to it, I hate ceding the resource to someone that rendered themselves a moron.
Mine is a visceral reaction not a legal justification. Seriously, I do not know what to do to deal with the issue. I just have the anger that a chihuahua is given a megaphone but it is within the rules.

Our precedent of law originating in the Constitution draws the line between speech of every kind, and speech that directly causes action that violates the rights of others. Examples are pornography, falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre, and conspiracies to commit crimes.

This means free speech that causes a loss of Constitutionally protected rights - such as proposing unConstitutional legislation like Obamacare, should be among the prosecutable, however as a practical matter, it is on the slippery side of that slope down to censorship, so as a matter of erring on the side of protection of rights - the central Constitutional principle, such speech is protected.