[phpisthebest]

That that is a very limited view of the concept / principle of free speech,

While it may be technically correct in the context of US Constitutional law, people that make this claim expose their opposition to the wider concept of free expression and likely would be the first ones to support an amendment to weaken the 1st amendment

[ok_dad]

I simply stated that no one should be forced to reproduce your speech, and you came back stating that's a limited view (why? no evidence or reasoning) and then made an ad-hominem attack on me, insinuating I'm someone who secretly has some agenda to destroy free expression. Maybe you're the one with the agenda here, and I'm just stating my simple opinions and views?

I'm not going to engage further with someone who acts like that.

[Bud]

It's not limited and it's not merely "technically correct". The only thing that has been exposed here is your lack of understanding of how all this works.

[phpisthebest]

No, it limits the concept of free expression to be governmental only. It is closely adjacent to the idea that government grants our rights and with out government we have no rights

it is rejection of the idea of Natural Rights for which the US was founded on, this rejection of natural rights is growing in the population is is very dangerous to those very rights

Believing that only governments can censor is a rejection of the principle of free expression which is "I may disagree with you but I support your right to say it"

Society should not embrace the idea that businesses, employers, etc should choose who they transact with based on peoples opinions and views. Society that embraces these kinds of virtue tests have no liberty, and have no free expression

[timdev2]

What is this concept/principle you're advocating? That all expression should be allowed everywhere always and nobody should ever censor anyone else?