Then this limited "freedom of speech", a provincial americanism based on a historical accident (the first amendment), is not the full freedom of speech the philosophers of enlightenment, artists, activists, etc., described.
>If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away
In this case, they weren't free to walk away, they were thrown out, regardless of whether what was said was popular or not.
If we allow those with internet platforms to decide what's ok to be written, we're regressing before the enlightenment.
It doesn't matter if someone can "create their own platform". A right to free speech should include the ability to talk in the popular platforms of the day, the "marketplace of ideas". Nobody should be guaranteed an audience, but nobody should be denied a place to speak and potentially gather one.
(Of course big private interests have all the space they want in their own owned platforms, from TV channels and websites, to press and social media -- for them there's no "make your own website to spew your shit", they already have all of them -- and they get to pick who gets to participate in them).
Also note that just because the wind today is pro-progressive, and people you like (like the Patreon guy) get to dictate who says what and what's not to be said on their properties, it doesn't mean it will always be this way. The liberal twenties in Germany were followed by Nazism. The 60's and early 70's in the US were followed by Reagan. Consider freedom of speech practices that should apply now and later, when progressives don't have the same clout.
Does the freedom to talk back to a cop as a black person and not be shot count (or segregation for that matter)? Does the absence of stupid practices like the "Parent Advisory" stickers on CDs and the extreme rating of movies count? Does it count if those countries people can express themselves freely on TV, even swear or show nudity, etc, and the nation doesn't go bezerk because some singer had a nip slip? Including gag orders and the like in the consideration or not? Does McCarthyism? How about people not losing their job because a, snail mail or today internet, mob reacted to something they said in a totally different outlet and reached their employees?
All, or almost all, Western European countries have freedom of speech and freedom of the press in their law and/or constitution.
In any case, all of these are beside the point. The point wasn't about what "freedom of speech" laws the state deemed ok to give, but what freedom of speech is (or should be).
Then this limited "freedom of speech", a provincial americanism based on a historical accident (the first amendment), is not the full freedom of speech the philosophers of enlightenment, artists, activists, etc., described.
>If people don't like what you have to say, or how you are saying it, they are free to walk away
In this case, they weren't free to walk away, they were thrown out, regardless of whether what was said was popular or not.
If we allow those with internet platforms to decide what's ok to be written, we're regressing before the enlightenment.
It doesn't matter if someone can "create their own platform". A right to free speech should include the ability to talk in the popular platforms of the day, the "marketplace of ideas". Nobody should be guaranteed an audience, but nobody should be denied a place to speak and potentially gather one.
(Of course big private interests have all the space they want in their own owned platforms, from TV channels and websites, to press and social media -- for them there's no "make your own website to spew your shit", they already have all of them -- and they get to pick who gets to participate in them).
Also note that just because the wind today is pro-progressive, and people you like (like the Patreon guy) get to dictate who says what and what's not to be said on their properties, it doesn't mean it will always be this way. The liberal twenties in Germany were followed by Nazism. The 60's and early 70's in the US were followed by Reagan. Consider freedom of speech practices that should apply now and later, when progressives don't have the same clout.