I can't even wrap my head around this argument. Is the speech of the people who want a moderated community restricted? It may be other things, but it isn't a "free speech" infringement on these people. Free speech is about "speech" first.
If they read something they don't like, it's the fault of the platform. It couldn't possibly be that they should take responsibility for their own offence and close the tab or log out of the service.
Or even, maybe, engage in self reflection to try and deal with their feelings and move on.
As an aside, free speech absolutists always ignore the inconvenient existence of spam. The absolutist position would definitely support the complete takeover of forums by spam, but I have yet to see an absolutist openly accept that.
Pretty sure I was told that the louder group is the one that is the winner.
P.S. I hope that the author sincerely regrets making this comic.
>Do you leave it alone and thus allow Group A's freedom of speech be effectively suppressed or intervene and suppress Group B? Either way, somebody's free speech is being violated.
Currently China is doing just that, drowning out the protests with a flood of louder voices. https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/28/tech/twitter-china-protests-s...
Is that free speech?
>All that comic says is that being told "no" and "you're wrong" and people disagreeing with you isn't a violation of your free speech.
From the text of the comic: >If you're yelled at(which includes heckling), boycotted, have your show canceled(otherwise known as fired), or get banned from an Internet community, your free speech rights aren't being violated.
Formatting mine.
That is a tad more than just being told 'no' or 'your wrong', isn't it. It is normalizing attacking the other.
I stand by what I said, the comic is bad and I hope that the author feels bad about it.