> The current law on free speech in the United States is precisely designed to allow (and, indeed, encourage) open and continual refutation of mistaken ideas on public policy. That is the whole point of the American experiment in free speech.

You're right. And the whole point of not punishing for their opinion is so that you can criticize them openly. Imagine if we didn't let the racists make their argument, then we can not refute them by reason because there would be nothing to refute. So to let them express their opinions, then everyone else can openly see how ludicrous they are, rather than trying to hide them and their so obviously wrong ways.

The parenting advice is something I picked up from various sources. And it's based on the idea that we should constructively criticize, and not scold. I'm sure you've heard the advice to show young children the right way, rather than to tell them explicitly that they are wrong. I have a very young sister that was born when I was 16 (I think) and this is why I even listen to such advice.

I'm not a parent, but I was a child, as has everyone. And being a parent does not necessarily legitimize any specific parenting tactic one has, especially with regard to long term effects.

So the example I gave about showing kids the correct way to do things instead of scolding or telling them they are wrong is probably a better example. I'm not exactly sure where I saw the advice for ignoring annoying behavior to stop it, but let's forget that example.

But this example is more analogous to our current argument. Instead of telling people they are wrong, it's simply better to show them, and others, the better way. The better way should be enough convincing and any need to artificially make it better (by denouncement) would be prone to human error. But to have to show someone the better way would require cooperation by reality if you know what I mean. And such cooperation by reality would only happen if your proposed idea, opinion, or whatever is truly better.

In essence, I'm proposing that we humans do the upvote, because nothing bad comes out of doing that, and let reality do the down voting.

So by only allowing up vote we better prevent people from artificially marginalizing an idea.