The Wrong Answer

Censorship doesn't work:

The central question here is: does censorship of dissident speech in the name of combatting “extremism” actually produce its alleged intended goal of less extremism, or does it produce more? From Naomi Wolf — an excellent ex-Democrat purged from the party in much the same way as Tulsi — via The Guardian, 2015 (emphasis added): “After the Charlie Hebdo shootings, heads of state marched abreast in Paris in symbolic defence of France’s long tradition of freedom of speech. This seemed reassuring. But that image was what political consultants call optics – for democracies around the world have recently seen a striking wave of anti-speech legislation… Surely, after one terrorist atrocity after another, stamping out the freedom to express “extremist” ideas on college campuses and online is a small price to pay for safety? But the core assumption on which these politicians, including Cameron, are selling these laws to the public, is simply wrong. The concept underlying such bills is that dangerous ideas are like a virus. You can quarantine them or kill them, like germs. But ideas are like a vast, rushing body of water that will uproot checkpoints and reconfigure a landscape – if barriers are placed in its way. In fact, the history of censorship shows that it is completely useless in stamping out ideas: the fastest way to spread an idea is to censor it.” She goes on to cite examples wherein state censorship has failed to produce the intended results.

There are many...