[stinkytaco]

>Sounds like you need to do a bit more reading on the subject.

I feel like you're making unsupported claims. I can think if two instances where you are correct:

1. "Equal time" laws, which are so specific and narrow in their scope to the point of being almost meaningless in a fractured media landscape.

2. Slander and Libel laws which protect people from being personally attacked when the claims are untrue. These laws do not apply to true claims, nor do they apply to criticism of opinions and they are very loose in the instance of public figures.

Neither one of these apply in this situation. I am perfectly within my rights to say "That opinion is wrong." and criticize it. Indeed, one could argue that's the very point of free speech, to encourage public discourse and argument.

[eropple]

I think you're missing his point. He's attempting to staple a moral argument to the citizenry--that it's not merely the government that must ensure freedom of speech, it's that we as citizens must accept and tolerate shitty speech. Which has no significant historical basis--Noam Chomsky is a guy and I don't have to agree with him, even when he's not being misquoted--but is alarmingly popular in certain dank corners of the internet.

More specifically, this notion is the origin of redpill horseshit--itself fallout from the fundamental disaster of my generation: the belief that we deserve to be loved, that people who don't love and adore us are wrong. From that tragic misapprehension rises this back-assward idea of acceptance-for-everything-under-the-sun, which you will note is employed almost strictly by people who have lost positions of social power but still cling to the ideologies of superiority that put them there.

One must deserve to be loved, and that requires work and effort. It is not, to crib a phrase from a friend, an existential entitlement.