On the other hand, the American Librarian Association's Library Bill of Rights says that libraries should have books presenting all points of view on current and historical issues, neither proscribed nor removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill
List of document interpreting those rights: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpre...
Some choice quotes from https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpre... :
> Thus there is no justification for the exclusion of opinions deemed to be unpopular or offensive by some segments of society no matter how vocal or influential their opponents may be at any particular time in any particular place.
> A balanced collection need not and cannot contain an equal number of resources representing every possible viewpoint on every issue. A balanced collection should include the variety of views that surround any given issue.
It all seems broadly reasonable; a library need not and cannot give equal shelf space to both sides of every issue. Nevertheless, a library should not categorically exclude one side of an issue, no matter how offensive.
This is the structural issue that underpins the criticality of active non-optimization through not engaging in the active suppression of bad ideas, but in the reiteration that bad ideas exist, and here's why they are classed as bad ideas.
It may not be popular, but I'm not kicking the Neo-Nazis off the stage to satisfy some thought by an accidental current majority, because that would set the precedent where if everything I hold dear (equal opportunity, free access to information, aid for those in need, equality under the law, right to autonomy, safety from foreign influences, effective representation, a government constrained by a mandate it conduct business through due process, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), heaven forbid, should it ever become relegated to the same "fringe" status by some horrible sequence of events, would be similarly revoked of it's time in the air, and rightly so, as I very clearly communicated how I wished to be treated by reserving the right to silence in a position of power. I have faith that no matter how much what I value gets attacked by bad ideas, it'll always tend to come out on top, and produce better outcomes in the long run.
I'm sorry. I'm not willing to sacrifice the moral or pragmatic high ground here, because someone can't relegate some rambling to the mental bit bucket, or has such a small mind as to be deluded into thinking that Liberty should by definition only empower things they like.
I may not agree at all with the repugnants, but I will fight to the death for them. Someone's gotta be there. If no one is, then we've already given in to might makes right. If there is at least one principled person though; one spark, there is still hope for the downtrodden and the damned, to whom I refuse to deny the right to the pursuit of their happiness; even if there is a status quo that renders the legs they need to achieve it incredibly unlikely. They have the right to champion their own cause.
For example you look at the history and look whether something was more helpful than harmful (eg: fascist propaganda) or you look at the science and look whether something is a real theory or barely an hypothesis whose flaws are well-documented.
Basically, instead of saying "GOP says it's raining and Democrats says the weather is nice", you look at the facts and open your window.
> That would set the precedent where if everything I hold dear (...) become relegated to the same "fringe" status by some horrible sequence of events
That scenario exists merely in your slippery slope fallacy. Meanwhile, fascist propaganda has been proven to do huge damage on this very planet of Earth.
Real freedom follows the principle 'the freedom of each person stops where that of others begins'. In the US it seems to mean: 'I must be free to do everything including harming people. If I can't harm others, I'm not really free'
I don't believe that many people believes seriously in 'free' speech absolutism. Are you for abolishing libel laws? Prohibiting non-disclosure agreement? Because they hinder practical free speech more than hate speech laws.