It is incredible that those most vehemently arguing media companies are "anti-free speech" seem to be the most anti-free speech of all.
Even free speech absolutists.
Even free speech absolutists.
For example, downvoting is often equated with censorship. But when I call free speech absolutists nazis, I get downvoted! So, I persist, to highlight the hypocrisy if nothing else.
So many issues can be broken down along the freedom vs liberty axis and this is one of them. One group wants the fewest restrictions to be imposed, freedom from, and one group believes that freedom of speech is best protected when the people who want to speak are able, freedom to, and that necessarily implies some rules. If you're someone who has argued for the principle of free speech that exists beyond 1A you're likely a freedom to kind of person.
So the question is whether speech is in issue like chess or driving where rules make the experience better for everyone or whether it's like free association or movement where it's better for everyone if the government has no say in the matter. I'm of the belief that it's the former but I recognize that the opposing view is also reasonable and has strong arguments supporting it.
The latter is freedom of assembly. If Twitter were banned from taking down my tweets, it isn't infringing on their freedom of speech. (Nor is it compelling their speech.) It's forcing them to associate with me.
Free-speech absolutists tend to ignore the inherent conflict between the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. (There also tends to be nitpicking over what counts as speech, as most simply exemplified by the question of bots and spam.)
Technically, yes. They’re used interchangeably in American English, with freedom of association having a labour connotation [1].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIHY5cFXqQk
Watch the whole thing -- it's worth it! ;)