Free speech is about government making certain forms of speech illegal. Criticism of people/ideas and freedom of association are themselves acts of free speech.
The principles of free speech can be held by individuals and organizations, even thought they don't have as much power as the government.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" doesn't necessarily need to be scoped to just "... from government interference".
Case in point: legal or not, people cancelling speeches and people, shutting down legal speech, do NOT stand for freedom of speech. In fact, I've often heard them say "I don't particularly care about freedom of speech", verbatim,
It's tiring to see people make the case that because the government was not involved, that it's by definition completely unrelated to free speech. Like, you clearly know that's not the case, from this follow up.
Of course the right to free speech does not extend to compelled speech, as you say.
ACLU defended the Nazis because they support free speech. But "free speech" of course doesn't compel them to. But clearly if they had chosen not to, they'd show they care less about free speech than they say.
Like the ACLU of today, who have said that they'll only defend speech they agree with, or something to than effect. Well, morally, do you actually have that value anymore?
Except that heckling and shouting down a speaker is speech too. And thus your argument is incoherent: do you want to restrict speech that impedes other's freedom of speech? If no, then the hecklers must be given free rein; if yes, then the case can be made to restrict racists' freedom of speech as they try to restrict some other people's freedoms, including the latter's freedom of speech.
How about industrial megaphones?
Your free speech only extends so far as it doesn't prevent, prior restraint, someone else's free speech.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
What you just said is the antithesis to free speech.
No. If the goal of your so called speech is to physically stop someone else's right to free speech, then you are just a thug and don't actually hold this value.
And like I said, many people who do this prevention of free speech admin it explicitly in so many words. They do not care about free speech.
> "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It's a great slogan and a terrific ideal. But actually think it through, in real world situations, and you end up with so many edge cases.
Whether done by the government or by an angry mob is a legal difference, but not a principled or moral difference.
You can't be in favour of free speech and also prior speech restraint, "as long as it's not by the government". And as I've said, to be fair to many of those who do it, they admit that they don't care about free speech. And it's true. Their actions are consistent with their claim.
Both heckler and speaker have free speech rights. The speaker did not come there to prevent the heckler's speech. But if the heckler did come to prevent the rights of the speaker, then they are not merely heckling.
That is a fundamental difference.
Your bullhorn preventing not just the speaker from speaking, but the listeners from being able to reject the speaker's message, is just, well, against freedom of speech and freedom in general.
> But actually think it through, in real world situations, and you end up with so many edge cases.
Am I'm sad that people will give up their values for inconveniences. Then they're not your values, just your hobbies, at best.
You may as well be against torture, "except when it's a bad guy".
Edit: or what do you think of this: You can report this comment to HN, hoping that it gets deleted. Would you claim that this is you exercising free speech, or fighting free speech? I would say it'd clearly be the latter. That is, if you did it not because you found my comment against HN policies, but because you disagree and therefore wish that my argument never be heard by anyone?
How do you determine intent? The heckler is entitled to say "I think the speaker is a moron. It's important that the speaker's audience hears that message. And that audience is only present now."
> That is a fundamental difference.
Pretending that you're able to magically differentiate someone's intent is the irritant in this perfect model of reality you've constructed. You can ignore it and remain pure because you don't have to deal with it personally. Those who have to apply free speech principles in practice can't be so pure.
I don't even know if you're a real person or the product of a bot farm. Does the bot farm operator have the right to unfettered free speech too? That's indistinguishable from "more money = more free speech".
In any case I'm not talking about a court of law.
> The heckler is entitled to say "I think the speaker is a moron[...]
Now I know you're not arguing in good faith, since that speech does not in fact deny anybody else's speech. Making it completely off topic. Which is what I'm talking about and I think you know it.
You do not believe that screaming the same thing over and over, or just plain screaming, every time another person tries to say any word at all in their planned event, is anything but the intent of prior restraint.
Are there grey areas? Well, it's life, so of course.
But I do not believe for a second that you don't know what I'm talking about.
Blocking an event venue and using bullhorns and megaphone feedback is not some unsolved philosophical conundrum. Which of course you know.
> Pretending that you're able to magically differentiate someone's intent
This is a pure straw man argument. That's not was I said and you know it.
What if I only say it at a respectful volume, when the speaker pauses? Should I be allowed to stay?
> Are there grey areas? Well, it's life, so of course.
Congratulations! You've discovered that there actually can be reasonable restrictions to speech.
Now we're just arguing about what they are and where they exist.
Btw I will say you've been needlessly antagonistic towards me throughout this thread, for no real reason. I'm not going to respond any further.
I can only conclude that you're saying I'm completely correct, and you only want to clarify the border?
That's fine.
You've conceded the point, and are now trying to mop up the details.
But you don't need me for that.
> What if I only say it at a respectful volume, when the speaker pauses?
Objection. Asked and answered. (In fact, not even asked. I was just very clear initially)
> needlessly antagonistic
With phrases like "congratulations! You've discovered" then playing innocent like this, who exactly do you think you're fooling? This is just bad faith.
This is not exactly rocket surgery.
> I'm not going to respond any further.
Yes, as you have painted yourself into an obvious corner of exposing your obvious bad faith, that is probably for the best.
You presumably also think that it'd be free speech to deny your math class hearing the math professor by non-stop screaming?
Nobody is going to stop my free speech about how integrals are not real because infinities don't exist or something. But that's not the same as giving me the right to shut down all speech about it but mine. So yes, I will be taken out of the classroom specifically set up to hear about integrals, for that.
Can religious people prevent your whole school from learning about evolution? That would literally fall under, in your words, a university ordering its students "we will invite speaker A to come talk to you on the big stage, and you have to sit there and listen". Not forced at gunpoint, but at grade-point.
Can I forever shut down a theology department by showing up every day with a bullhorn? Is that free speech?
Would it be free speech to give literally everyone a heckler's veto?
I really think you need to refine your question.