You have probably heard the phrase "Sunlight is the best disinfectant" at some point in your life. Most likely you know what it means, but in case you don't it means that the best way to convince people of their faulty views is to shine a spotlight on it. This spotlight can be a discussion, video, tweet or whatever else comes to mind, but the premise is that any form of open scrutiny of someones opinions is the best way to bring forth the truth.

So what is the point of bringing this up? In essence people of different political persuasions, whether radical socialists or neo-nazis, have been agitating for the sun to stop shining on opinions they deem wrong or immoral. And that's where the sunlight quote comes in to view. The goal of silencing the opposition, no matter where upon the political map they land, is flawed and doomed to fail in it's stated goals. To pick apart this idea we first have to know the central arguments. 

1. People are inherently gullible and can be swayed to believe in falsehoods by demagogues, soothsayers and snake oil salesmen. 2. In order to protect our democracy and core values we have to silence those who seek the end those very things. 3. Some things are way to hurtful and offensive to be allowed.

Point one is easy to back up with anecdotal evidence of people buying in to flat earth or chem trails, but the argument makes two points, by necessity, which are that there must be an authority to decide what is true and what is not. The other point is that people should not be free to believe what they want. Let's tackle the first point. If there exists such an opinion that necessitates censorship that means someone has to decide that this opinion is necessary to censor. But who or what is this authority and by what right does it claim to know better that everyone else what is true? I would argue that there exists no one with such authority or knowledge and that no person or persons have the right to decide what ideas are harmful. Besides restricting ideas to be expressed, ideas would also be prevented from being heard. We seldom get our beliefs from nowhere and any inspiration is bound to change how we think, whether that means changing your beliefs or digging in your heels on the current opinion you hold. And if we are not free to express that means we are not free to think. Besides sounding important freedom of speech and opinion are cornerstones of our democratic way of life. Speaking of which.

Point two says that in order to protect our democracy from undemocratic groups, for example such that wish to curb the rights and freedoms of society, it is necessary to censor those groups before they gain too large a following. The problem with the argument is that the premise defeats itself, by fighting fire with fire all you end up with is charred remains and devastation. In the case of the argument this means curbing freedoms in order to prevent those freedoms from being infringed upon. As previously mentioned the very logic of the argument defeats itself.

Point three is based on protecting people, more often than not these people would be described as socially disadvantaged or marginalized, from being offended. Now this might seem noble at first, few of us like being offended, but at a second glance this too is destructive if we are searching for the truth. Offense is by nature a subjective matter, you can take offense to me not taking of my shoes when I enter your house, or you could be offended by a applauding audience after a concert. If offense is subjective that inherently means some are going to be offended by the truth. Say for example a morbidly obese person could take offense to hearing that obesity increases the risk for several health complications or a homosexual being offended by the fact that certain STDs are more prominent in gay circles. Besides truth having the ability of being offensive we again come to the problem of finding an arbiter of language, where do we draw the line for hate speech, what would be included as hurtful, who decides what is offensive and what is not. And as a final counterpoint to the argument, there exists no right not to be offended and, based on the previous counterpoints, no such right ought to be instituted.

Lies can be told and spread, hurtful words can be uttered and turn smiles to frowns but in the end, for a truth seeking society, freedom of expression is something mustn't be infringed.