i just want to quickly clarify my views on hate speech legislation and laws around speech, in general.

1) laws where the government orders that people cease communication are statist and authoritarian and bad. that's unconstitutional on both sides of the great lakes. the state should never dictate what can and cannot be said. ever.

2) but, remedies for libel and defamation are neither statist nor authoritarian, but ways to correct rights abuses. freedom of speech always comes with the caveat of being liable for the consequence of that speech. it never means that you can say what you want without further consideration. put another way, the freedom to speak comes with the obligation of speaking responsibly. i am consequently in full and enthusiastic support of civil and common law action. the canadian legal system seems to be far more willing to award damages than the american system is; i am more in agreement with canadian jurisprudence than i am with american jurisprudence.

so, to me, the proper anarchist rights balance is that the government ought to have essentially no say in the matter of banning or allowing speech, but that people should be hit brutally with harsh financial punishments and crippling boycotts when they behave dishonestly. it is through civil litigation that people should police themselves on this manner.

this is only going to appear as a contradiction to people that wish to profit off of lies. society has a right to protect itself from this, even as it rejects statist interference.