it's inaccessible for somebody who is poor in montana to travel to new york city and speak on a soap box in central park. Should that be an argument against ne

it's inaccessible for somebody who is poor in montana to travel to new york city and speak on a soap box in central park. Should that be an argument against new york having free speech because its not accessible to some people? Your last sentence confuses me because it sounds like you are arguing that if it's possible for somebody to be too poor to use a platform then that platform should never have free speech, and i'm not sure how those two concepts link. Anywho. The ideological and moral principles of free speech exist in tandem with other ideological and moral principles. I run a forum for a game server to an open source game (I also run the game and the game server, but that's besides the point). This forum has sections with various names and the section names all spell out what type of discussions that section is intended to hold If somebody wants to post about how badly they hate how I run the site or the game server, and post it on the role playing and table top rpg board, it will get removed, as its off topic, and nobody in the community would care. If they instead post that in any one of 5 sections that it would be on topic for, and i remove it, as I technically have to right to do, I will have trampled on that posters free speech, and everybody has the right to tell me to fuck off for doing so. What you are failing to understand is that the principle of free speech is akin to the principle of not being a dick, its enforced by society in the same fuzzy matter where conflicting interests are concerned