If robust speech against Hitler had been possible that would be good too. But opposition was censored, wasn't it...
Think about it.
If robust speech against Hitler had been possible that would be good too. But opposition was censored, wasn't it...
Think about it.
Of course we aren't. That's why newspapers and media outlets of all kinds should be regulated. Any one individual's views are insignificant compared to the fourth estate firepower of think tank funders and media billionaires of all varieties.
There is no equivalence here. The latter can dominate and define public conversations and opinions in a way that most of us can't even imagine, never mind match.
Free speech and monopolistic concentrations of money and media power simply cannot co-exist. You can have one or you can have the other, but there is no way you can have both together.
And without free speech all you have are distortions generated by very powerful people with very loud bullhorns, who will be front and centre about their views some of the time, but deniably covert the rest of the time.
In that kind of environment the concept of censorship is a distraction, because the "freedom" to say what you want - as if it has any real influence at all - is an illusion anyway.