Your example is an interesting one, because I think it just shows there are consequences for certain types of speech, but that speech is still very much possible.

Kind of like how I can park without feeding the meter, and the "consequences" are just tickets. At no point can my license be revoked if I always pay all the tickets.

So getting back to your analogy, if I use speech to make false claims about a product I will get a hefty fine, but there is nothing physically stopping me from doing exactly the same thing tomorrow.

The speech isn't actually prohibited or "denied" anymore than me parking illegal is, there are just consequences if I choose to do it.

In my example the speech is not physically prohibited but it is illegal.

Right, but what we've seen in the last couple of weeks is speech being physically prohibited.

Yes and the argument some people are making is that the government and private companies should not be allowed to regulate speech.

There are principled exceptions to freedom of speech that are generally easy to identify and agree upon. I think there may be reasonable concerns about Parler's willingness or ability to police illegal speech online, but the stated reason for deplatforming is a farce.

They reference things like the capitol riot, but if I recall correctly the actual storming of the capitol was planned (to the extent that it was a planned affair) one FaceBook. There's lots of things shared on FaceBook and Twitter that are bad (and even illegal) but they don't get the boot from their service providers - and Twitter is an Amazon customer as well!

And the fact that Twitter is a big Amazon customer should not be ignored. It could be that Amazon's motivation was primarily political, but protecting the interests of one of their largest customers should not be ignored.

But regardless, the real key here is that Amazon blatantly violated their contract. No company bets their business on a hosting service that does not provide protection against spontaneous cancellation of service.

Even if Amazon wins the lawsuit, the message to all to all of their customers will be "we can turn you off at any time and for any reason". Expect to see a lot of migrations to other providers if that happens.

Right-wing nut here.

It should only be fraud if you make false claims on the contract. False claims outside any contract shouldn't be considered fraud.

And yes, there can be limitations on freedom (including freedom of speech), but the burden of proof falls on the side arguing for the limitations. And the reason for limiting formal freedom (e.g. freedom to lie on a contract) should always be to increase "freedom" in practice (all the practical and legal arrangements that contract law makes possible).

I don't think there's a good reason for insurrectionist speech to be (legally) banned, because I don't think there's a good reason for any political speech to be banned, as horrible as it may be (nazism, keynesian economics, etc), because all political speech is ultimately violent speech. And banning one strand of political speech is morally the same thing as banning any other.

> And banning one strand of political speech is morally the same thing as banning any other.

Is this really tenable? I agree that all politics is ultimately backed by force, but that doesn't make all politic speech one and the same. A night-watchman state is hardly comparable to the CCP, for example.

Ah, the evergreen "I don't believe any of this, but hopefully you do so you'll do what I want" argument.

The correct response is tit-for-tat: always refuse to abide by principles your enemies refuse to accept even if you privately think those principles are worthwhile.

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you mean.

The strategy of this style of engagement is to take something someone already believes and connect it to something they don't believe in. This way you meet them where they are and lead into a discussion.

It's incitement. Trump was just impeached for that.