We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14388706 and marked it off-topic.

Do you have any legal citations about any party being compelled to listen to another such that the other's right to free speech is preserved?

I havent heard of the right to be heard, but most people know of free speech. So where are you getting the idea of the right to be heard ? Is it a legal idea, your personal idea, a philosophical idea ?

Are you trying to derail, or are you seriously not understanding that there is no right to be heard, it's a thing GP made up on the spot to illustrate what free speech is not?

Look Im not lawyer. But I do know free speech is something extraordinary legalistic in america so Im asking for clarification.

http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-res...

https://www.thefire.org/free-speech-includes-the-right-not-j...

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/12/opinion/who-is-entitle...

A google search showed tons of different opinions and views on what I originally thought was a simple view.

So no its not as simple as people are claiming or saying

Are you asking for proof that a speaker has a right to force other people to listen to their argument?

I read it as requesting exactly the opposite.

any legal precedent one way or another. Ive heard of free speech but nothing either way about a right to be heard.

That's because there's no "right to be heard." Just because we have a right to speak freely doesn't mean we have a right to be listened to. You might be free to say whatever you like, but everyone else is free to ignore you; owners of publishing platforms are free to not publish your recorded words.

As I said, freedom of speech does not automatically transfer into a right to be heard.