Just a brief note - this post from TechCrunch is pretty bizarre overall, and it really demonstrates the extent to which people in the media don’t even bother to articulate why or how free speech is now bad. More relevant to me, it links to my piece on the historical futility of attempts to censor right-wing extremism and characterizes it as “endorsing hate speech.” This is, to put it mildly, not an accurate portrayal of my opinion, at all. My essay argues that censorship efforts have constantly failed outside of the most repressive authoritarian contexts, and will no doubt fail in the United States as well. There is no good-faith reading of what I wrote that could cause someone to conclude that my post is an endorsement of hate speech, and as such the claim is simply factually inaccurate. I emailed a public tips email at TechCrunch asking for a correction but have not heard back. I have been unable to find email addresses for the writer or their editor in chief.
The linked piece of mine (which is good and correct) takes time to explain the is/ought distinction, the difference between a normative claim (this is good) and an empirical claim (this is true). I think it would be a good idea if people in media read about that distinction. They really seem not to understand it.
Update: TechCrunch has fixed the offending reference. I appreciate their prompt attention.