A neutral, independent community in which members debate issues related to social justice.
Classical Liberal Ideals and Social Justice
Classical liberalism is the philosophy in which the role of the government is to safeguard civil liberties and individuals should be given maximum freedom. This includes almost unrestricted freedom of speech, of assembly, of the press, and of religion.
What was the justification for freedom of speech? In an open society, having freedom of speech means that there was a "marketplace of ideas" in which it was up to those with the ideas to persuade others that their idea was the right one. Keeping that marketplace free of restrictions would allow controversial, radical ideas to be present as well, and as proved many times throughout history, sometimes the radicals had a point, or were right completely.
While it was originally meant to be a philosophy of government, it also became a principle used in non-governmental institutions as well. The principle of academic freedom, for example, derives from the concept of freedom of speech, especially the freedom to be controversial and offensive.
However, not all people agree with the notion that offensive viewpoints should be heard in a "marketplace of ideas". For example, in 2014, a debate on abortion was cancelled, because expressing views in opposition to abortion was considered to be a direct threat on the safety and lives of female students. 40% of millennials want the government to ban offensive speech.
This dynamic is present when it comes to online spaces as well - there is considerable opposition to websites such as Reddit and Youtube because of light moderation. This light moderation comes from the idea that not restricting speech allows everyone to have the opportunity to speak up, without fear of being censored. Critics say that all that it has done is led to non-institutional silencing, in which marginalized groups are "silenced" not by the government or by the institution, but rather by being drowned out and made to feel unsafe.
Is it fair to say that classical liberalism, especially freedom of speech as a principle, is outdated in today's society given what we know now about the nature of speech and public discourse? Is it fair to say that those who came up with the idea of freedom of speech are wrong? Given that free speech restrictions are a major issue in social justice circles, what is your view on this topic?




This is a bit jumbled because I'm tired - feel free to ask me to elaborate.
I am totally in favour of free speech.
I'm also in favour of respecting boundaries.
This can be solved fairly neatly online depending on the website and assuming everyone cooperates - for example, I can blacklist terms on Tumblr and only follow blogs that reliably tag what I'm trying to avoid.
(Respecting boundaries also means that websites get to set boundaries/rules like "nobody should engage in hate speech here". That is not censorship to me. You're not banned from saying the thing, you're banned from saying it using the website's services.)
It's harder IRL. Many people don't respect it if you say "actually, I don't want to talk about [issue]" and it can be hard to avoid hearing about big events and the like. That is unfortunate, and I wish more people respected stated boundaries and made it easier to set them, but I don't think that the solution is to have the state ban certain things from being said. I'd rather educate people about boundaries, hang out less with people who don't respect them and if it turns into harassment, report that.
In Germany, there are actually forbidden opinions. Granted, I find Holocaust denial revolting and don't support it, but it chills me how people say "yes, it should be illegal to say that, all nazis should be imprisoned, etc.". I don't like the idea that one of the opinions I actually support could be met with jail time, so it's unfair to do that to my opponents. I like this relevant Thing of Things blog post.
In Switzerland, we go even further, we think to save all the things you mentioned, there must be an instrumen to surveil the state. Every citizen who collects enough votes can force a general votation. That means, our government will think twice before a new law or treaty. Swiss voters are in 99% of all cases a very reliable nation.