Clarify Which Free Speech Value You’re Debating

This is a fantastic article -- I've seen these confusions play out on forums (including HN) countless times, but not just regards with free speech, but really with regards to any policy -- tech monopolies being a big one here. We see the equivalent:

1) What actually is a monopoly legally (e.g. Apple and iPhones are not, because not enough market share)

2) What should be considered a monopoly, the law should be changed (e.g. make walled gardens considered monopolies)

3) OK it's not a monopoly but it's still indecent/bad (e.g. Apple has every right to charge 30% but it makes them an a**hole)

It's easy to think of 10 other subject areas we see the same debates/confusions playing out over endlessly. And while there already exist general-purpose terms for the three categories -- 1) legal, 2) moral, and 3) preference -- people really seem to often mix up legal vs. moral, and moral vs. preference. Because when you just say "X should Y"... your "should" could be based on any one of those three.

TFA distinguishes notions that tend to be confused in ways that lead to more heat than light.

> This is not a plea to understand, or value, Free Speech Rights, Free Speech Culture, or Speech Decency the way I do. It’s not a plea to reconcile them the way I do. It’s a plea to be more specific about which value you’re talking about.

The whole Twitter dustup is kind of between fsc and SD.. the TOS didnt ban promoting the "banned" platforms, you just had to pay for it. This seems indecent but you can still do it. I checked the minimum spend on Twitter promotion, it's $10. I did not check if promoting a banned site but paying for it would not result in suspension (there was not enough time)

It seems the people who support Free Speech Culture, like the author, have woken up to the fact that the biggest risk to that value is in fact the people screaming about Free Speech on the internet.