This article is throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks. Despite the title, it doesn't offer a new definition of free speech. Instead it complains th

This article is throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks. Despite the title, it doesn't offer a new definition of free speech. Instead it complains that other people want to redefine freedom of speech. Gore Vidal once complained that ABC cutting him off violated the first amendmend[1], Josh Hawley said the same about Simon & Schuster cancelling his contract. One of these things is "the continuation of a long-term strategy that American historian Joan Wallach Scott has termed the 'weaponizing of free speech' [...], or the deliberate misrepresentation of the very idea of free speech" and a "dangerous redefining of freedom of speech". No points for guessing. The article argues that Kant's and Mill's arguments for freedom of speech don't apply anymore, Kant's because we live in a democracy, and Mill's because a lot of people are still wrong about stuff. After so much speech! Hard to know where to even start here. It blatantly misrepresents Kant. Kant's argument in no way rests on his opposition to democracy. Kant simply argues that people must obey laws as long as they are in place, but should be free to argue against them. Needless to say, this applies both to democracies and autocracies. As for the argument against Mill, it's so stupid, I'm not going to bother. [1]: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/09/mcveigh200109 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2001/09/mcveigh200109