Because up until recently, nobody tried to police the internet so it wasn't necessary. I'd imagine that will ultimate be what ends up being campaigned for though.
I thought the goal was absolute free speech. Robin Thicke being banned from a university campus wouldn't be policing the internet. One would think that would have been an issue before the internet came along (there have been more than enough papers and books on it). Besides, racist views were being kept out of newspapers and off television before the internet came along. This opposition to prejudice is not new. More importantly, this still doesn't explain why it only becomes important when bigotry becomes an issue.
You could indeed. So when you say:
Glad you agree So when you say in the OP:
My question is, and I'm not trying to be offensive here, but is this a case of SJWs being deliberately trollish or disingenuous, which if I'm honest is what I've always interpreted it as? Or is there a genuine inability among SJW circles to understand that someone could be the most pro-equality person in the world, while defending the right to air utterly abhorrent views?
Is it fair to say that SJWs are being deliberately trollish or disingenuous when they're doing the same thing you are? Does your group have an inability to prioritize fighting bigotry and the actual damage it causes over fighting rules that they think " don't involve defending anyone else's rights"?
But my original point remains - just because I object to sexist or racist views being moderated online, doesn't mean I am a sexist or a racist myself.
I haven't said it does. I did say that it shows your priorities. It seems like you're more concerned with either a) opposition to rules or b) a right which has little effect. Bigotry and prejudice have real, tangible, and structural effects on people's lives. If the only time your group of absolute free speech advocates feels like showing up is to defend bigots then they are either bigots themselves or more concerned with protecting prejudicial viewpoints than the issue you claim they're fighting for. People don't have to be sexist to support the institution of sexism, but one should be more concerned when they know they are doing so.
Finally, I think the harm being done by prejudicial viewpoints is both obvious and well documented. What harm is there in limiting free speech to the limits it currently has? You've repeatedly mentioned that you think absolute free speech is necessary but you haven't articulated why