> Regardless if you believe he actually believes in free speech absolutely... (what happened to the account that tracked his plane in real time? or if you want to move the goal posts, please define absolutist?

Is it in the public interest to know where his plane is? Given the recent high profile assassinations and attempts there's good reason against it at least.

> He's parroted enough dog whistles that nazis love that it's fair to group him with the rest of the people who overly espouse nazism.

> When someone tells you who they are, you should believe them

That was my point I was trying to deliver before...let people say what they want, then they can be challenged. There are plenty of platforms, including X where you can voice opposition. Unpleasant people aren't going to stop being unpleasant just because they are stopped from voicing their opinions.

> Is it in the public interest to know where his plane is? Given the recent high profile assassinations and attempts there's good reason against it at least.

Lmao, so he's a free speech absolutist but only if there's a public interest in it? And who gets to make that decision? I would gladly make the argument that as someone in control of a government agency, the public does have an interest.

But I don't even need to make that argument, anyone with the capability to act on up-to-date information isn't gonna get it from Twitter. Flight information is public, you can look up flight plans by tail number. Everyone else is just going to wait for a local public event, and the flight details become secondary to that.

But the point is he's not a free speech absolutist, defending him using that shows either a complete break from reality, or is itself a dog whistle.

> That was my point I was trying to deliver before...let people say what they want, then they can be challenged. There are plenty of platforms, including X where you can voice opposition. Unpleasant people aren't going to stop being unpleasant just because they are stopped from voicing their opinions.

There is a social cost to tolerating such behavior. A good society stops broken people from inflicting psychic damage on others. There's a huge difference between, it should be illegal to express some idea/meme, and everyone should happy to enable toxicity and bigotry, and host the content of those who want to hurt others.

That toxicity is what you're defending after all. With transparent ignorance to the specific behaviors and actions that occurred leading to rise of nazism in the past, you object to calling someone a nazi who protects them without overtly denouncing them, while also leaning in really hard into the coded language and dog whistles.

What do you call someone calls for the mistreatment of others based on some identity? A nazi. You might want to reserve that term only for overt attacks against a specific named religion, but to agree would demand ignoring reality. The poem "First they came", doesn't start with jews.

And what do you call someone who not just protects, but amplifies and eagerly aligns with the culture of racism and people who gladly accept the epithet of nazi? Most people would call them a nazi.

It's weird to object to someone calling him a nazi, while also trying to defend him using the free speech absolutist argument. You want people to be able to be freely judged based on their behavior, but then object when they're judged for said behavior?