“The problem is, as always, that your argument can be applied to just about any group where an individual (or a few individuals) become extremists. By your logic, we could ban Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Unions, etc, etc.”
Clearly it cannot, as my argument does not pertain to groups but to individuals engaging in specific behaviors.
“And as a degreed historian”. Oh? Which area of history?
“I made the claim about the use of psychiatric hospitals against dissenters because that is the road we are traveling - suppression of dissent and that was a tool used by the regime we appear hell-bent on emulating.”
That’s a slippery-slope argument, and a logical fallacy on the face of it. More subtly you made a causality error, claiming that “the use of psychiatric hospitals against dissenters” is an effect of censorship, which it is, to the best of my knowledge, at most of co-effect with it of tyranny.
Tyranny is something states do. We’re discussing Patreon, which is not a state.
“As for the consequences being overshadowed, that’s true only if you believe freedom of expression has no intrinsic value.”
That is the logical fallacy of the Excluded Middle. One need not believe freedom of expression has “no intrinsic value” to believe however great its value, that doesn’t exceed the value of millions of lives or the value of living in a society in which there is not a genocide.
“Sadly, nobody believes ‘make no law’ actually means ‘make no law’.”
Perhaps the prevalence you find of a lack of support for your extremism on free speech should give you pause.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
That’s the Naturalistic Fallacy, using a deservingness (“should”) argument in the place of an argument of substance (“is”).
“And as a follow-up, please explain how your theory does not lead to banning the Bible, the Holy Qur’an, and the Communist Manifesto. Individuals and groups have used those to defend violent acts, and continue to do so.”
Is this really the best you can do? You really don’t seem to understand the basis of your own position, and have a garbled notion of the historical precedents and philosophical premises that argue for “free speech”. The Founding Fathers did not include the first amendment, well, initially at all, hence “amendment”, but more to the point, they did not include it because they believed “freedom of expression” had infinite value. If they had, we wouldn’t have promptly wound up with the execrable Alien and Sedition Acts of 1789.
In any event, to address your point, we weren’t discussing the banning of books by the state. We’re discussing the refusal of service of payment processing by a privately held business.
And given that (lamentably in my opinion) our SCOTUS has decided that money is speech and corporations have rights, it would seem that Patreon deciding they don’t want to use their money/speech to promote QAnon means that Patreon’s side is actually the maximally free-speech side.