>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.
>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.