Comments I'm posting elsewhere, in defense of free speech

[bemused_leftist]

Remember the other part of the no-free-speech side: "You do not have to provide a forum for those you disagree with. There is no principle that says everyone should have an opportunity to present their side. Censorship of opposing views is just what they deserve. If they weren't assholes, no one would criticize or censor them

Comments

[fengi]

Media consolidation and the Koch brothers suing critics is not the same as people saying a rich bigot shouldn't be given more money, or HR rules about workplace harassment.

Whether you intend it or not, bringing up media consolidation and free speech when the topic is powerful bigots facing consequences for talking shit comes off as defending is the right of white guys to say whatever they want without those with less power getting to respond. It's like you are saying if someone supports bigots being criticized or punished, they are also supporting NYT silencing people. These aren't the same issue and you know it.

Free speech does not mean everyone gets to talk everywhere all the time without consequence or universal neutrality. Free does not mean free of judgement or law or reactions. That's both physically, socially, legally and financially impossible. By your standards, editing violates free speech, libel laws violate free speech, being arrested for constantly screaming at other people in a bar violates free speech, getting fired for talking about a co-workers breasts violates free speech. Nor is every exercise of moderation fair, but not every alleged unfairness is the same or connected.

When you start writing as much about a disadvantaged person being silenced, I believe the motive is actual free speech.

[bemused_leftist]

Your replies here are slightly more civil than your previous tone. But they are still full of ad hominem, and structured around ad hominem.