> to make drama around free speech.

I remember when free speech was an ideal that was universally recognized as crucial to a functioning democracy.

"Making drama" by refusing to participate in a censorship program strikes me as admirable.

What a strange world we live in where so many people sneer at the concept of free exchange and the marketplace of ideas, and those that seek to support it.

I don’t. I remember when every country and society have different views on freedom of speech and where the limits are.

US concepts are NOT universal - in South Africa we have strong laws against racist hate speech - call somebody a local slur for black person (k word) here you going to get prosecuted and fined and perhaps even jail never mind being dragged on social media.

We call it "crimen injuria" in our laws - right to dignity is defined in our constitution and frankly this has NO place in our society considering our history.

You don't remember when free speech was an ideal for democratic societies?

You must live in a very different world than I do.

"the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom." - John Locke

Certainly never been in the US. The US decides holocaust denial is fine, but saying “I’m going to kill the President” isn’t. Other countries have different views. The US is happy to arrest people who work for companies who disagree with US limits on free speech who happen to visit the US (Skylarov), and even to use its economic might to get other countries to uphold its anti free speech agenda (Kim Dot Com)

So, because we fail to meet it, the ideal isn't valuable?

Not absolute free speech - there are limits.