zlacker

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ free speech is free speech even when you don't like the way it's used. Your right to say what you want doesn't supersede my right not to grant you a platform or even give you the time of day. Even Ben Franklin "moderated" the content of his newspaper. He didn't feel that free speech obligated him to print anything he was given. So this isn't a radical new concept.

Freedom of speech and freedom from speech are two sides of the same coin, just as freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Moderation isn't a violation of free speech, nor is it a farce. It's free speech being exercised as it was intended.

>>krapp+(OP)
You are conflating editorial rights with some form of free speech.

Free speech doesn't require a platform to work nor any intermediary. It is a boundless idea.

>>Timber+3M
"Editorial rights" are free speech, they're one and the same.

Nowhere in my comment did I claim free speech requires a platform or an intermediary, they happen to be relevant in the context of the discussion we're having, just as television would be relevant to a discussion of free speech in broadcasting. Free speech doesn't require telecommunications infrastructure, yet it still applies, and broadcasters (even of public access stations) have the right to refuse to air content they don't want to.

You're the one putting limits on free speech despite also calling it a boundless idea.