> Earnest misinformation cannot be an exception to freedom of speech I agree with this. It is a matter for the audience to decide what speech they will listen

> Earnest misinformation cannot be an exception to freedom of speech I agree with this. It is a matter for the audience to decide what speech they will listen to, and how they will evaluate it. It is cause for regret thaat so many people lack the means to evaluate the utterances of crackpots. But you can't start to evaluate it if you haven't heard it; there are "forbidden views" that you won't hear on MSM or the big internet platforms. I'm not a free-speech maximalist. Incitement to hatred or violence is forbidden here, and I'm cool with that. Lying, fakery and distortion are permitted (provided it's not in furtherance of selling stuff), and I'm OK with that too. I'm not OK with a whole swath of views being suppressed without any process. That's not what's happening with Young and Rogan. Rogan has been paid by Spotify for his podcast; if they decide to shut him down, well he has other platforms. And he gets to keep the money. There's no chance he'll be silenced. I'm not OK with the way the word "censorship" is being bandied around here. Once upon a time, when email blocklists started to become popular, spammers accused MSPs of censorship, which was ludicrous. Nobody has a right to use the private property of others to exercise their free speech. You can say what you like, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone, and I don't have to stand next to you on the platform while you say it.