¯\_(ツ)_/¯ free speech is free speech even when you don't like the way it's used. Your right to say what you want doesn't supersede my right not to grant you a platform or even give you the time of day. Even Ben Franklin "moderated" the content of his newspaper. He didn't feel that free speech obligated him to print anything he was given. So this isn't a radical new concept.
Freedom of speech and freedom from speech are two sides of the same coin, just as freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. Moderation isn't a violation of free speech, nor is it a farce. It's free speech being exercised as it was intended.
"Editorial rights" are free speech, they're one and the same.
Nowhere in my comment did I claim free speech requires a platform or an intermediary, they happen to be relevant in the context of the discussion we're having, just as television would be relevant to a discussion of free speech in broadcasting. Free speech doesn't require telecommunications infrastructure, yet it still applies, and broadcasters (even of public access stations) have the right to refuse to air content they don't want to.
You're the one putting limits on free speech despite also calling it a boundless idea.
Lots of countries, including the US had plenty of free speech. There was a kind of freedom golden age from the 70s until the late 90s, and then, 9/11, Patriot Act. It has been all downhill since then.
The United States has free speech by all but the most extreme definitions. The 1st Amendment is well-tested and supported by the courts. Sometimes, like in Citizens United, to an extremely flexible definition of speech (political campaign donations by corporations.)
We're not talking about forcing people's eyes open to watch content, à la 'Clockwork Orange'.
It's not hard to imagine social media discussion being made a lot more meritocratic, and a lot less censorious.
Vital scientific perspectives on topics that affect literally billions of people ought not be secretly censored for political purposes by non-scientists. That isn't really a huge demand; it's pretty basic freedom and science and health stuff.
The most high profile examples are Assange [0] and Chelsea Manning [1]. Daniel Hale. [2] John Kiriakou*. [3] Sami al-Hajj [4].
Snowden chose exile over torture, and so has been separated from his family for over a decade.
Many people were tortured that didn't even work as journalists; just victims of bad metadata or the wrong name.
Many countries and organizations even consider so-called "standard practice" in American jails to constitute torture. Solitary confinement, sometimes for years. Refusal of basic medical care, nutrition, sanitation. Physical abuse from guards. Unmarked graves behind the jail [5].
Nowadays even environmental lawyers can get put in jail for the crime of winning judgments against fossil fuel companies (Donziger [6]).
* - Wasn't physically tortured, but he did reveal torture and was heavily retaliated against for his trouble.
You said "Let others say the wrong thing on your platform, be it advocating against a narrative or revealing evidence of war crimes, and you can be tortured." The "you" refers to the owner of the platform. Which platform owners got tortured for things others said on their platform?
Julian Assange; did the "war crimes" and "torture" part not give that away?
Chelsea was published on Wikileaks as well.
Daniel Hale was published on The Intercept. They faced no consequences, but they also failed to protect Hale's identity. Hale was then made into something of an example (despite many honors from people praising his bravery).
Al Jazeera (Sami al-Hajj's publisher) have been repeatedly lethally targeted lately (with US made and funded weapons) without much comment from US media.
"Free Speech Zones" are a limit on freedom of assembly, not speech. Less about preventing people from saying an offensive thing outside of the zone & more about keeping the physical mass of a protest from disrupting the flow of traffic or causing a security issue
Riiight. And the fact that this keeps protesters far away from anywhere they might be seen, or be effective, or have any impact at all is just an unintended side effect.
Anyway, you're entitled to yourself and W's interpretation. Me, I go with the ACLU on this one.
Most people also don't want their opinions to be silenced or used against them either.
As for limits, I think by now we have collected enough data from social media use to know what kinds of posts border on outright immoral and are a negative to society. Some of these have been captured and prohibited by law. It wouldn't be that hard to use the existing laws and norms as a test bed.
But again some people don't want free speech because they are afraid their feelings may be hurt in an exchange. Mostly boils down to that.
