While censorship might seem to be the best antidote to hate speech, in reality it strengthens fringe groups, while free speech neutralizes them, a new report suggests.

According to researchers Sean Stevens and Nick Phillips, in the face of hardcore racism Americans should resist the natural inclination to curtail free speech, which would only create sympathy for the ones being silenced. The “impulse to start limiting speech – either with on-the-books campus speech codes or simply through stepped-up social enforcement of speech taboos – is likely to pour gasoline on the fire and make the problem worse,” they note.

Writing for the Heterodox Academy, Stevens and Phillips cite research suggesting that “restrictions perceived to threaten or possibly eliminate behavioral freedoms may trigger ‘psychological reactance,’ and increase one’s desire to engage in the restricted behavior.”

In experiments with college students designed to assess desire to hear censored material, for instance, when participants were informed they could not hear the content of a taped speech, they consistently reported a stronger desire to do so.

Moreover, perceived discrimination from the outside “increases ingroup identification, and can increase anger, hostility and aggression towards outgroups,” the authors found.

The reactions to censorship are therefore counterproductive, since they actually encourage the sort of behavior that censors are attempting to curb. “Censoring a speaker may increase some people’s desire to hear that speaker’s message, particularly those who perceive the speaker as similar to them in some way,” the researchers wrote.

As a result, “censoring and disinviting a speaker such as Richard Spencer may actually make him and his views more popular,” they wrote. “Instead of acting as an antidote to hatred, censorship may pour gasoline onto an already simmering fire.”

Speech codes and disinvitations “may feel good in the moment,” but they just represent an easy way out.  Often, what has been made taboo and socially undesirable comes back stronger than before,” they said.

The best way to counter vicious speech, the writers contend, is with more speech, not less.

One way to do this is through effective protests, they suggest, while another way is by directly countering the arguments and rhetoric of those whose ideas are harmful to individuals or to democracy itself.

“Speech can be deployed as a scalpel, able to cut through vitriol, rhetoric and mendacity to help counter speech that advocates for harmful ideas and outcomes,” they said.

Bigots and demagogues will always seek to restrict the free flow of ideas, while those who are convinced of the power of their arguments will encourage it.

The way to stop bad ideas is by putting forward better ideas.

Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter