Slander and libel are considered controversial amongst die hard libertarians. It's much harder to use those laws to suppress speech in the USA than, say, the UK. Which is one reason why the USA produced South Park and nowhere else can.
Do laws against "doxxing" even exist at all, or is that something you made up? Journalists "doxx" people they don't like all the time, apparently without consequence.
Laws against threats of violence are extremely controversial because the left constantly tries to redefine the term violence to encompass any views they don't like. In the USA the exact definition of "imminent" in respect to violence speech has consumed considerable attention from the courts.
Child porn is the least controversial, but even there, you will find controversy. Apple rolled back their plan to scan everyone's iPhones for child porn due to how controversial it is, right? And there is significant debate about what the actual legal age of minority is, because it varies around the world, and whether cartoons count or not.
False advertising: this is the least controversial form of speech control for libertarians because they want informed markets, but even here, it's controversial because governments suck at enforcing such laws neutrally. Consider all the news agencies that advertise themselves as neutral whilst being obviously biased.
Planning a crime: the border between people making idle threats and actually being legally liable is constantly being thrashed out by the courts even today, and usually convicting someone of this requires more than just speech. You have to actually take action towards carrying out the crime, not just saying you will.
In short, none of your examples are free of controversy. So the allegation you're insinuating there - that everyone who disagrees with you on this is a secret Nazi - does not work.
> No one is restricting the speech of the nazis on Substack.
In fact they are, because Substack does ban genuinely Nazi accounts. See the Andikon Reich example. This doesn't bother anyone because it's a very clear and precise match. The fuss is the usual problem where the left label anyone to their right banned under whatever rules are the most emotive, even when they don't apply at all.
Do laws against "doxxing" even exist at all, or is that something you made up? Journalists "doxx" people they don't like all the time, apparently without consequence.
Laws against threats of violence are extremely controversial because the left constantly tries to redefine the term violence to encompass any views they don't like. In the USA the exact definition of "imminent" in respect to violence speech has consumed considerable attention from the courts.
Child porn is the least controversial, but even there, you will find controversy. Apple rolled back their plan to scan everyone's iPhones for child porn due to how controversial it is, right? And there is significant debate about what the actual legal age of minority is, because it varies around the world, and whether cartoons count or not.
False advertising: this is the least controversial form of speech control for libertarians because they want informed markets, but even here, it's controversial because governments suck at enforcing such laws neutrally. Consider all the news agencies that advertise themselves as neutral whilst being obviously biased.
Planning a crime: the border between people making idle threats and actually being legally liable is constantly being thrashed out by the courts even today, and usually convicting someone of this requires more than just speech. You have to actually take action towards carrying out the crime, not just saying you will.
In short, none of your examples are free of controversy. So the allegation you're insinuating there - that everyone who disagrees with you on this is a secret Nazi - does not work.
> No one is restricting the speech of the nazis on Substack.
In fact they are, because Substack does ban genuinely Nazi accounts. See the Andikon Reich example. This doesn't bother anyone because it's a very clear and precise match. The fuss is the usual problem where the left label anyone to their right banned under whatever rules are the most emotive, even when they don't apply at all.