I do agree that this is unambiguously a violation of free speech, though the first amendment doesn't enter into it. What I don't get is the last bit, which you've only restated- why shouldn't people be allowed to invoke free speech on the basis of their opinions on what it means?
Because at least in America “free speech” refers to 1st Amendment protections, which this does not violate.
“Free speech” does not mean “carte blanche protection from any repercussions from anything I say, everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me.”
So when the first amendment says congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, that's self-referential and does not refer to an underlying basic human right? Or are you saying that Americans just don't care about why the bill of rights exists anymore because the constitution is now their sole source of morality?
> everyone is still obligated to like me and be nice to me and do business with me.
That takes force. You can't ask the government to protect you from the consequences of your speech, because that violates the free association of others.
>Because at least in America “free speech” refers to 1st Amendment protection
Which I took to be the part that tried to answer why 'whining that others have a different view on what “free speech” means' is somehow bad behavior in a way that other political speech isn't.
I really had no intention of discussing my position on free speech, but briefly: It is morally good for an entity to permit freedom of speech and it is morally bad for them to suppress it, but I don't think the government has any business pushing them in either direction.
I think it’s better if we don’t mix your preference for people to be nice to you with our hard-won guaranteed right from government oppression.
Maybe pick a different term?
“This content moderation is a violation of my personal content preferences!” has a nice ring to it, and won’t delude people into misunderstanding how our society works.
Or you could use "first amendment" to refer to the first amendment and I can continue using the term that predates it and is referred to within it to mean what it means.
I really do not get why "it's okay if a corporation takes away our rights" is such an important point to you that you are enforcing your vocabulary in service of it. It doesn't cohere for me when you suggest it's a right worth fighting for, but if anybody other than the government takes it away from you it's just a preference.
Correct^ In fact, even more philosophically, the marketplace of ideas needs ways to select ideas. The bad way to apply selection pressure is with the state (thus the 1st Amendment). The good way to apply selection pressure is to have other people tell you you are an absolute fucking moron and refuse to associate with you. That's what free speech really looks like.
For 33-45% Americans, the only source of morality is what the Orange Dear Leader says. That's why they are fine with supporting a candidate who openly calls for jailing people who criticize the Supreme Court judges and wanted to shoot protesters in legs.
