> I don't know, do they? I can't really address a comment like this without you being more specific. I tried to convey that by pointing out that you are exerci

> I don't know, do they? I can't really address a comment like this without you being more specific. I tried to convey that by pointing out that you are exercising free speech to eliminate someone else's free speech. That seems contradictory to an environment where free speech exists. > Sure, this is a fine principled stance to take. However, if this is a principled stand rather than one based off situational politics, doesn't that apply to other forms of speech which are used to stifle speech of others? > Hate speech is one example. The people who advocate against cancel culture generally aren't in favor of more restrictions on hate speech. It seems a little disingenuous to just lump everyone that doesn't think cancel culture in together with those that like hate speech. I don't support hate speech. > Money in politics is another. If political advertising is protected speech, doesn't a billionaire having the ability to outbid me for all ad inventory in the lead up to an election stifle my ability to freely voice my beliefs? Either the billionaire's ads aren't free speech or they are free speech and are being used to drown out the free speech of others. I don't know the answers to this, it does not seem black and white and seems like a more complex scenario but an ad market does not seem like it is exactly similar to a free public forum. But yes, it seems bad if that's what you are asking me.