If you scream about private platforms canceling speech you agree with, and then you intimidate and suppress other private platforms when they publish speech you don't agree with, that puts the lie to your ostensible unlimited-free-speech principles.
Re:Statement on New York Times Article
by kazinator on Sunday February 14, 2021 @07:10PM
(#26137551)
What if I criticize platforms canceling speech I disagree with, and don't intimidate anyone?
You've built a strawman model of a free speech advocate and are focusing on that. There may be some real life personalities who call themselves free speech advocates who resemble that strawman, but it's still a strawman.
- you oppose "cancel culture";
- you're okay with white supremacists having access to audiences via platforms, if someone is willing to provide them with that.
Intimidation and suppression cannot be avoided; they go hand in hand with having any sort of rules.
For instance, the law against stealing uses intimidation and suppression: people are intimidated against stealing with the threat of jail sentences, and offenders are suppressed with actual imprisonment.
You can't have guarantees of freedom of speech written in law without the intimidation and suppression being written into the same law: there have to be negative consequences for a law breaker infringing on someone else's constitutionally granted freedom of speech, which are written and enforced, in order for the law to have meaning.