[haltingproblem]

I think this is a poorly written article devoid of substantiative argument. The author's substack earned a unsubscribe based on it.

It has become fashionable to argue the "I might disagree with you but I will defend to death your right to express it" to which is appended "in the NY Times, on Facebook, on Twitter, on Youtube and every private channel that exists."

First, the disagreeable opinion part is wrong since every open+democratic society has a section of speech that is curtailed - sedition, libel, incitement to riot, etc. These extents of censorship vary by country. The USA is relatively liberal but the UK has stricter limits on libel. The author demonstrates a poor to no understanding of these limits.

Second he/she conflates the limits on government prohibition on free speech rights to the right on the property of others - i.e. the right to free speech is the the right to publish on privately owned media channels. The Sulzberger family which owns significant equity in the NY Times (>$1B) and controls it has the right to decide what gets published in the NY Times, which you might agree/disagree with. Similarly for Twitter which is privately owned.

However I don't think it should be flagged ;)

[amadeuspagel]

"in the NY Times, on Facebook, on Twitter, on Youtube"

One of these things is not like the others.

[pwinnski]

The NY Times prints the views of paid employees rather than every rando off the street (usually), but it is a private non-governmental organization, so it both is and is not like the others.

[AnonC]

> The author's substack earned a unsubscribe based on it.

Stretching the author’s argument, you’re not abiding by the culture that the First Amendment and other laws have wanted to create, and you’re as guilty as xkcd in unsubscribing (re-emphasizing that it’s according to the author).

[66fm472tjy7]

You are putting words in the author's mouth. What you are describing is a kind of "right to an audience", where in the article is there a demand for this?

If the comment were demanding that substack remove the article, or if the commenter was trying to get the author fired from his job for this article, I would consider it against the idea of free speech. Note that this does not equate to a demand for any legislative change or government action.

The view expressed in XKCD 1357 is that there would be no free speech issue since it isn't the government trying to prevent the author from making his article available to those who wish to read it (again, no one is asking for a right to an audience or right to be protected from disagreement) or threatening his livelihood as retaliation for publishing the article.

[coffeemug]

Demanding people read things against their will is a hell of a stretch of the original argument :)