The suggestion was not to support the speech itself, but the right to the speech. Big difference. Many of those who've been deplatformed for disinfo, or hatef

The suggestion was not to support the speech itself, but the right to the speech. Big difference. Many of those who've been deplatformed for disinfo, or hateful speech, etc. couch their victimization narratives in the loftier ideals of free speech, with the disingenuous pronouncenent "who gets to decide?" My point is that society decides and must necessarily decide if we're to continue to have a society. And, if they disagree that anyone should have the right to decide, then they can demonstrate their committment to that belief by openly embracing the speech rights of those most universally abhorred. Otherwise, they acknowledge the existence of and rationale for limits, and just want to be the decider.