It’s a shame because society needs examples of institutions that represent values as important as free speech. If we want to move forward we have to tolerate nazi speeches as long as they obey the law.
When institutions like that disappear it’s a lot harder for individuals to keep up the fight.
The hard thing about defending Nazi's marching is that people have to understand that it sets a precedent for the Black Power movement to march or women's rights movements to march or pro-choice movements to march. If you let these horrible people's rights be stripped away, then when a new power sits in the driver's seat, those causes that you care about can be stripped away because of the short sighted, greedy view taken.
“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
The issue is, of course, the thorny problem of allowing illiberal speech. What would the above author say if someone told them: "I disagree with what you say, and I'll make it illegal to say and jail you for it in the future"
Are you, the original author, supposed to defend their right to threaten your freedoms with your own life?
From this paradox emerged the current debate over de-platforming and "free speech" because people are nervous that their liberties are at risk, and thus they shouldn't tolerate intolerance.
Personally I think it's tricky. We have many, many examples of nations where illiberal leaders abused their freedom of expression to gain power only to pull up that protection behind them and become a dictator while crushing dissent. We really only have a few counter-examples (namely the United States) where free speech absolutism has survived multiple regimes.
The model of free speech that is currently popular on the Right, namely freedom from public backlash as the result of open expression, is juvenile and not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. You have the right to say whatever you want from the perspective of the State, but you do not have the right to an audience or to escape the consequences of your speech. Nobody should ever be arrested for their political opinions, but this idea that the left has gone "woke" or mad by cancelling people they disagree with is simply their right as individuals. So long as the Government isn't making it illegal for you to appear on TV or have a cell phone provider (for example), there's no such thing as being cancelled by the government from a 1st amendment perspective.
On the left there's a bit more nuanced debate that basically pressures private institutions to cancel and de-platform actors that the left feels are attacking the foundation of their institutions. This is all above-board from a legal perspective, but can feel illiberal because it is largely mob-rule. Nuance is discarded and lives can be ruined by accusations that aren't researched in-depth before being blasted out into the world of social media. Here there also needs to be restraint, but again it's not like Verizon is cancelling someone's cell phone access because they had a bad tweet. It's ironically a very capitalist movement where the fear of affiliation hurting the economics of a business causes them to release a statement or "cancel" someone for their speech. Turns out being a racist isn't a great marketing tactic in our capitalist world.
In sum I think the danger to our democracy is still greater from actors who seek to use freedom of expression as a ladder to the top, and then kick away that ladder once in power. It's the biggest weakness of open democracies, and one that should be guarded against carefully. Thankfully a strong commitment and defense of the 1st Amendment from both parties should thwart strongman attempts. We need to make sure that political tradition stays alive.
Free speech is a social value to be upheld not just by the government but by the larger society and the people that comprise it.
Private companies have the legal right to deny their platform as they see fit, but it is illiberal and censorious to deny it on the basis of viewpoint.
I think private companies can deplatform whomever they choose and be as "woke" as they choose to be. The only obligation a corporation has is to its stockholders, like it or not. They aren't public squares, much to the dismay of many of the people who cry foul.
The ACLU can also take this path, but I think it's truly a shame. And there is no such thing as "free speech absolutism", not even in the US. The litmus test (to my understanding - I'm not even close to a lawyer) is the call to action, where it would be legal to say, "I wish someone would burn this place this place down" as opposed to "Let's burn this place down" during a protest might be illegal (I may be wrong in this example - ask a real lawyer).
I also don't believe in a repercussion free society where you can post anything on social media and face no societal backlash. We are social creatures and dictate socially acceptable behavior as a group, at large. If you take a stance that goes against the grain, right or wrong, there will be social repercussions. People have to understand that before they post, and I hope they do. Sometimes standing up for what you believe is worth it. Sometimes making a crappy joke really isn't =)
When institutions like that disappear it’s a lot harder for individuals to keep up the fight.