>> On the right, there seems to be a growing view that "free speech" means that you should be able to say whatever you want (even if it's literally a factually

>> On the right, there seems to be a growing view that "free speech" means that you should be able to say whatever you want (even if it's literally a factually untrue lie), and not experience any social censure and be welcome on any platform or venue. > This is a good point, however, it's worth pointing out that 'free speech' definitely covers 'untrue and false facts'. I suppose so, but such things are often not protected by the First Amendment, and expressions of falsehood have no positive value except when corrected. The point I was making was actually the clause after the one you quoted. > I guess, if you're the President of the US, lying about election outcomes, the the results of the lies are so outrageous, that there may be some 'sanction' on a private platform. > I'm not sure what the 'censure' should be for private individuals, sometimes regular people have difficulty with the facts. What I meant by "social censure" was criticism, condemnation, correction, social rejection, etc. The people on the right that I was talking about seem to believe the free speech means they should be immune from those things, or that their statements should be presented with a false balance (e.g. as a he-said-she-said, "Trump says the sky is green, but Biden disagrees and says the sky is blue"), or that others should be obligated to repeat them without further comment. The Parler things show that clearly, since their main objection was that their false statements on Twitter were being paired with corrective warnings and sometimes even hidden behind them.