But since you ask, I am not okay with it in many contexts and my confidence estimates are applied to individual situations rather than being general. I have had experience of being attacked by mobs, both online and physically. I have scars from being kicked in the head and stabbed in the leg during such an attack. I've separately been arrested and jailed on specious charges over political activity (more than once) and obtained dismissal of charges in court. And I have been the target of both verbal and physical violence on many, many occasions, often both on the same occasion. So I come at this question with very extensive first hand knowledge of how such arguments can play out.

So now, would you care to respond to the question I asked: how do you think coordinated speech in a marketplace of ideas differs from coordination of buying or selling in response to price signals?

If you go after the person, you are not participating in any marketplace of ideas, you're now the one committing the violence.

Seems to be about the idea to me.

This is a really obvious idea that people seem to have a lot of trouble understanding, especially when the framing of the conversation drifts toward "cancel culture".

Well, they're literally doing this in the UK - people have and are being arrested for offensive speech.

Not “literally” the same as assault charges though - “public order” laws have a long sordid history of their own.

Right. I can't think of anyone I have come across in liberal media. But you can always dig someone up that takes any given position.

> While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We live in a world where the mechanisms of mass communication are held in private hands---there is no digital public square, regardless of what techno-libertarians might have you believe.

All correct. The people who want it to be one way or the other (depending on their political leanings) usually are conflating constitutional protections from the government as being applicable to/from everyone and everything else.

If you're screaming on Twitter that (some racial group) is bad, and people tell you to shut up, they are allowed to do so under the first amendment. You're allowed to do so under the first amendment. Twitter can totally ban you based on what they deem acceptable behavior, because the first amendment doesn't regulate private companies (just the government).

If you're calling for the extermination of that particular group, the government can charge you under US Code for inciting violence:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/373

...But you have to prove intent, which is notoriously hard to do, and notoriously easy to get off scott-free from. ("I was being bombastic, I didn't think anyone would LITERALLY try and exterminate said group")

First off, they are. but if you are saying: loose your job and ability to make a living, losing your ability to speak in public, fuck me give me those charges then!

you are backing tyrannical ideas while trying to pretend you are just being reasonable.

Your employer declining to continue your employment: freedom of association

Advocating for a university to not host your talk: freedom of speech

A university not hosting your talk: freedom of association

and so on.

One more nail in the coffin for Internet anonymity.

In essence, what I'm saying is that a card-carrying member of some radical movement (whichever movement you or I hate the most) perhaps should be shunned by people in all kinds of social activities because of their beliefs, but IMHO as long as they aren't breaking the law, they still should have the right to be a part of the society and receive core services which require interaction with it, namely, public services, education, jobs, housing, etc.

We have drawn a line in sand upon crossing which people are excluded from society, and that line is criminal law if determined in due process. And before crossing that line people should have the right to not be discriminated in employment. If most of your coworkers hate you because you come from the "opposing outgroup" where there's mutual hate and perhaps a history of violence between your "tribes" - too bad for them, both you and them should still have the right to work there.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are primarily owned and controlled by individuals and private companies rather than by the government or public institutions.

None of the things mentioned above are related to capitalism's coverage of free speech. It seems that your intention is to suppress those who hold differing opinions, and you are using the assumption that the silenced individuals support capitalism to justify your actions.

Seriously though, do you not see how private ownership of communication services impacts the question of who is allowed to use those services? And that if there were a truly public service, how that would dramatically change the situation with respect to First Amendment rights?

For the record, I'm a huge fan of capitalism. But it surprises me how many people don't understand that it has drawbacks, and that we should be honest with ourselves about those drawbacks. It's ok to say that you're pro-capitalism but that you also think that the Internet (or at least some of it) should be a public utility, for instance.

When you prevent somebody from being on a platform, you also prevent others from hearing what that person has to say.

As for amplification, it is not amplification to show me your tweets with #stabledifussion when that is what I search for - it is the entire point of Twitter.

And no, to be amplification, Twitter would have to boost certain tweets artificially. It is very unartificial when I get results for searching. Otherwise it is also boosting if I use the municipal library to checkout a book, or buy it on Amazon, at which point amplification is meaningless.

Libraries are also amplification, but they are generally public. When a book is banned from a library, it potentially violates the First Amendment. Twitter is not public, so when a user is banned from Twitter, the First Amendment does not apply.

If and when we have a government-operated Twitter, it will have to offer equal access to everyone, and it will have to tolerate any speech that falls under First Amendment protection. But until then, you'll have to live with the possibility that the private services you use will kick you off because they don't like what you say.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/suing-e...

Things like insults, shaming, and verbal abuse are part of emotional abuse in divorce cases. These need not be evidence of actions or character. These can be used for an at fault divorce. What is consided to br an insult or shaming can vary greatly on perspective. Not to mention, the court may not stick ro just these examples and could include other things that makes the other person feel bad - "I hate this meal. Why do you always make this?"

https://www.jerkinsfamilylaw.com/emotional-abuse-and-divorce...

When it comes to public universities, there is a legitimate question, since a publicly funded university may be considered a state actor. But when it comes to private services like social media where it seem most of the controversy lies, they're free to set any rules they want. And unsurprisingly, their terms of service generally give them broad discretion on who they let use their service.

Considering this is repeated a couple times by the author, it seems they are talking about a general statement and not a narrow circumstance, even if they're using a specific example. It's important to point out that the statement above is not universally true, or if it is, then our laws are immoral.

"Again, those are legal principles that have been enshrined in law for a long time."

“When we do become offended, as we all will, we must settle for responding with criticism or contempt, and stop short of demanding that the offender be punished or required to make restitution,”

It seems to me that restitution and punishment would include those leveled by the legal system. Simply because something has be law for a long time does not make it off limits to discussion, especially if it's application/interpretation has changed over that time.

Or just like, new regulations on the giant corporations operating these services? No need to go as far as communism.