People also don't seem to realize that the action does not need to be real to cause a reaction by the other side. I'd provide an example, but to do so would just inject my own biases.
I'm sure anyone reading this can think of at least 5-6 "reactions" by the other side which had no precipitating action -- regardless of which side they're on. It starts to seem a little silly to worry about the reaction on the other side, when that reaction is likely to happen anyway.
There are good, principled reasons to avoid censorship. Concern about what irrational actors will do in response is not one of them.
Censorship is often used by the strong to advance their personal interests. For instance two people "on the same side" have a lovers quarrel. One of them deplatforms the other. Another example: some official takes a bribe, and when the press realizes they are censored. Third: Some company has a competitor, and gets them censored for purely monetary reasons.
Another aspect where censorship creates issues is that every idea starts as fringe before growing mainstream. If they are censored it creates ideological stagnation.
A third is that true but "dangeroues" ideas, can have important implications. And those implications may be ideas beneficial to everyone. But since the dangerous idea is censored, no one will figure the implications out, and the benefits are not realized. For instance, let's say there was election fraud, but the censors "bet on the wrong horse" (nothing is certain, at some point you have to say it's >95% certain so we will treat it as true) and censor such claims. Then they may miss opportunities to make elections fairer in the future.
I'm trying to avoid my own bias here, so I'm going to come up with two examples that should be familiar to US audiences, one from each side. Take your pick:
- Impeaching Trump and attempting to remove him from office after the Ukraine call (which Trump supporters believe to be perfectly normal presidential behavior, and Trump opponents believe was naked corruption tantamount to solicitation of a bribe)
- The recent insurrection in the American capitol to prevent the certification of Biden as the next President (which Trump opponents believe to be the result of a legitimate process, and Trump supporters believe to be an entirely fabricated victory)
I happen think the former was a fully warranted reaction to a real (if ineffective) attempt to undermine American democracy, and the latter a reckless and contemptible reaction to nothing. It's irrelevant to my point, though: if you can look at either of those and say there's nothing there, then the other side is completely capable of reacting to nothing.
I'm sure anyone reading this can think of at least 5-6 "reactions" by the other side which had no precipitating action -- regardless of which side they're on. It starts to seem a little silly to worry about the reaction on the other side, when that reaction is likely to happen anyway.
There are good, principled reasons to avoid censorship. Concern about what irrational actors will do in response is not one of them.