| "Free speech" of the type often invoked these days is essentially, "the right to be hateful, attack other groups and lobby for their subjugation". Then, of course, there's the "right to poison society by spreading radicalizing disinformation". Adherents to this style of free speech decry their de-platforming by "big tech" which doesn't want to endorse their toxicity (partly because dysfunctional societies are bad for business and partly because their targeted customers may speak with their wallets). The acolytes' standard reaction in response to this violation of their right to be awful is "who gets to choose which speech is acceptable?" as if we don't otherwise have a functioning society, social contract, and laws. Other people get to choose. That's who. Their right to free speech includes a non-obligation to regurgitate your speech. Don't want to be "censored"? Then, don't pretend you have no idea what anti-social behavior is and don't be awful to other people. Otherwise expect that you're free to talk, but no one's obligated to listen. For those who don't agree with this, then tell you what: pick something absolutely and near universally abhorrent, say sexual abuse of children, and make the right to lobby for its legitimacy your rallying cry. Use it as the example of speech you intend to allow because "who should be the arbiter?" Until you're willing to stake your beliefs (or project, etc.) on that, no one should buy what you're selling. Because then it becomes immediately obvious that what you're really lobbying for is a narrow, but vocal group of people whose ideas you likely agree with, but whose speech you view as recently restricted. |