The persistent problem of free speech and platforms is the question of censorship. Is there a point at which, in order to preserve someone’s potential happiness, speech should be censored? Or is speech protected in all forms?

There are two primary issues with censorship. 1) censoring the speech of one party opens the door to censorship of others and begs the question of consistency: when is it ok to censor and when is it not? a question which is based on relativity and 2) censoring the speech of one party can lead the radicalization and appeal of that party, so that even if censorship is ok, exercising it can work against the reason censorship was delivered at all.

In order to avoid these issues, a different approach can be taken. If hate speech/harassment are viewed not individually as problems, but rather the symptoms of other problems, then addressing the root of the issue avoids the problem of censorship.

It would then become prudent to trace the root of hate speech to its various structural supports, namely the oppressive structures that serve to divide and dichotomize individuals and fester hate between them. A dissolution of these systems, among them capitalism, the patriarchy, and racist states, would then discourage hate speech to such an extent that censorship should never be necessary.