Maybe Free Speech wouldn't be under such an assault if people weren't saying that you have to allow everything, including harassment and doxxing, to not be "assaulting free speech".
Not to mention that doxxing and harassment are not free speech in the first place.
The issue is that those rules are enforced energetically and stringently against dissidents, but are often not enforced or enforced in a lax way for orthodox activists.
E.g. Anita Sarkeesian publicly calling one of her online political opponents a shithead and garbage human from the stage at a conference. He was sitting in the audience quietly. Result: he (not she) gets barred from returning on the grounds that his presence was somehow threatening, while her open vicious insults are passed over.
E.g. Zoe Quinn's crash override network had a chat log leaked where they were organizing harassment and doxing. No consequence.
Double standards everywhere.
This is why they like super vague terms like harassment and hate speech. If the term has huge flexibility, the people with power have huge arbitrary power to apply it.
I'm sorry, but your examples are quite out of context. Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment. I cannot be upset at her for calling him out, and I cannot be upset that he was banned.
As for the other one, you're gonna have to provide proof.
Not that it's worth wading too far into this, but there is no good reason to believe those people were there specifically for harassment.
For one, if they were there to harass, you would expect them to have done some harassing. I have seen no examples of that. The only possible thing that could be construed as harassing behaviour was them being there in the first place - and I don't think that's a very high bar to set for harassment.
I mean, you can watch the videos[0] of the event yourself. None of it looked particularly harassing to me, until Sarkeesian started attacking the audience.
Not sure what exactly you're referring to when you say 'the story' but the articles I've seen don't seem to paint the same picture ([1] for example).
[0] First video I found, shows the whole talk. The point in question comes about 2:30 into the video.
"Not that it's worth wading too far into this, but there is no good reason to believe those people were there specifically for harassment."
Yes, their is. Their behavior, both at the event and their prior behavior online towards her both suggest that is the entire reason for them being there.
>> Read the story about Sarkeesian's thing. Those people were there specifically for harassment.
Maybe you need to read unbiased news because they were not, nor did they do anything that could even remotely considered harassment. Attending a talk of your political opposite is not harassment
Though I do think they went WAY over board on the reaction to being called "Garbage Human" but I understand why as they are correct if the roles where reversed the SJW reaction would have been FAR FAR more dramatic...
It is very much not a lie. They sat in the first three rows, and they were all pointing cameras at her. Hell, some of those people even went on youtube after to brag about what they did.
Not to mention that doxxing and harassment are not free speech in the first place.