This is an extremely naive view of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not unlimited. Your freedom of speech does not supercede my right to not have to constantly put up with your toxic bullshit on my platform.
Your freedom of speech also does not create in me an obligation to give you a megaphone. My freedom of speech, however, gives me the prerogative and the moral duty to take back my megaphone if I find you to be using it to hurt people.
> This is an extremely naive view of freedom of speech.
It's just a definition, I'm not presenting any opinions. The first definition you can find on Google says:
"the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint."
If you are "for" any kind of censorship, even of hateful views, then you can't be also for freedom of speech, by definition.
> ..your toxic bullshit on my platform.
I hope you don't feel I've been 'toxic', I thought we were having a friendly discussion.
> Your freedom of speech also does not create in me an obligation to give you a megaphone.
I didn't say that it did. I didn't say a lot of the things you're commenting on. I just said that if you care about being consistent and not hypocritical, you can't claim to be for certain kinds of censorship and also freedom of speech.
"your" above was hypothetical. I had no intention of referring to you in particular, just "you" as the rhetorical character opposite to "me", because I think inventing whole jew characters and giving them names Alice and Bob style is odious.
I contend that the Google definition you quoted is bad, or at least incomplete. Taking away a loaned megaphone is a type of censorship. It is also a type of speech: you are "saying" that you no longer want to amplify that person's ideas. It is necessarily both.
To be a free speech absolutist is to say that the New York Times must publish every nonsense article every 8 year old sends them, because editorial curation is a kind of censorship.
> To be a free speech absolutist is to say that the New York Times must publish every nonsense article every 8 year old sends them, because editorial curation is a kind of censorship.
This is a straw man argument and not what it means at all. I feel like we've found where we diverge though. I'm using the American definition of freedom of speech, it's true that other countries may have similar rights that are defined differently and with restrictions. In my view though, the definition includes the words "all" or "any" and precludes restrictions. You either have the right and are able to express 'any' ideas or you don't have it.
Your freedom of speech also does not create in me an obligation to give you a megaphone. My freedom of speech, however, gives me the prerogative and the moral duty to take back my megaphone if I find you to be using it to hurt people.