“You can be a strong proponent of free speech and support stronger regulation and penalties for legitimately dangerous speech.” This is an oxymoron. If you support stronger regulation and penalties for legitimately dangerous speech, then my question to you would be; Dangerous to whom?

My guess is you will say minorities. Remember, the 1% is a minority too. They will use all these specially carved out protections for themselves, when time comes.

Also if you think misinformation, the biggest source for misinformation is the governments, number two is the legacy media. Far, far behind are posts on twitter, facebook, tiktok, youtube, rumble.

“I don’t see a lot of left wingers coming out against free speech”, well this is because it’s easy to say you are for free speech, it’s harder to defend it in a room full of people not agreeing with unpopular speech. If you only defend speech that is easy to defend then it’s not principled, it’s just a hobby.

“but I see a lot of right wingers dehumanizing others and directly calling for violence, then trying to pretend that’s free speech”, dehumanization of others is never a good look, but since they were allowed to express themselves, you know better where they stand, and not to support them. If they were censored, you wouldn’t know their stance. “directly calling for violence, then trying to pretend that’s free speech”, how did Bernie start all his speeches? “Are you ready for a revolution?”, that revolution never came because he was never ready for a violent revolution. He had the protection to say it, but he never did. He’s been in politics for too long, and knows the consequences for those words.

I will fight for the right of anyone to say those words, because a revolution might turn violent, and not being allowed to talk about it freely is nonsensical.