Imagine if you submitted a letter to the editor to a newspaper and got back a response saying they were refusing to print it because it violates their rules for appropriate content.
Now imagine you storm into the lobby of the newspapers' office accusing them of censorship and demanding that they print your letter. They'd call the police to please remove the crazy person. Nobody would have argued that you are entitled to having a letter published in someone else's newspaper. That's clearly insane.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are entitled to use someone else's property as a platform. The vast majority of the complaints about "free speech" I see today are people who seem to believe this. It's like we've become so accustomed to free (ad supported) social media that we've started to think it's some kind of entitlement.
There are very few things you can say (in the US) that will get you actually censored. I can think of copyright infringement, explicit threats of violence (and the bar there is very high), or child pornography. Other than those you can pretty much say anything you please. I am not aware of any time in the history of civilization when speech has been this free.
Edit: I must point out that my comment is US-centric. There are quite a few places in the world that don't take free speech as seriously. But I don't get the impression that's what this petition is about. It's about "cancel culture" which means "people refusing to let me use their property for free to promote any message I want."
That isn't the concern. The concern is that the "rules for appropriate content" have been moved to restrict views that, while outside the mainstream, are not hateful or violent. The most obvious example being the suppression of COVID origins or criticism of COVID response policies:
Saying that "I believe COVID was the result of a lab leak, here is my evidence" versus Saying "I believe COVID was the result of a lab leak, here is my evidence, and as a result we should [do something violent/illegal]"
See the difference? The former should _not_ be restricted under any circumstance, even if the "evidence" is bunk. Let the fact that the evidence is bunk sink the theory, not the moderators. The latter, on the other hand, contains a call to violence, so it should reasonably be restricted.
Of course, a privately owned platform like Twitter/X could say the former isn't allowed on their platform and they would be within their rights to restrict it. However if they restrict it because of pressure from the US government, that falls into a more precarious situation.
Of course the 1st amendment only applies to the government. Platforms can restrict anything they want with or without explanation. But the government can't pressure platforms to restrict things, that _does_ violate the 1st amendment, as the private company is then acting as a proxy for the government.
Imagine if you submitted a letter to the editor to a newspaper and got back a response saying they were refusing to print it because it violates their rules for appropriate content.
Now imagine you storm into the lobby of the newspapers' office accusing them of censorship and demanding that they print your letter. They'd call the police to please remove the crazy person. Nobody would have argued that you are entitled to having a letter published in someone else's newspaper. That's clearly insane.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you are entitled to use someone else's property as a platform. The vast majority of the complaints about "free speech" I see today are people who seem to believe this. It's like we've become so accustomed to free (ad supported) social media that we've started to think it's some kind of entitlement.
There are very few things you can say (in the US) that will get you actually censored. I can think of copyright infringement, explicit threats of violence (and the bar there is very high), or child pornography. Other than those you can pretty much say anything you please. I am not aware of any time in the history of civilization when speech has been this free.
Edit: I must point out that my comment is US-centric. There are quite a few places in the world that don't take free speech as seriously. But I don't get the impression that's what this petition is about. It's about "cancel culture" which means "people refusing to let me use their property for free to promote any message I want."