Seems there are more limits on "Free speech" than I recall, these days, at least according to Florida's attorney general [1]..<p>“In a brief submitted by the State of Florida in support of Escambia, Attorney General Ashley Moody argued that the school board could ban books for any reason because the purpose of public school libraries is to "convey the government’s message," and that can be accomplished through "the removal of speech that the government disapproves."<p>1: <a href="https://popular.info/p/florida-school-district-removes-dictionaries" rel="nofollow">https://popular.info/p/florida-school-district-removes-dicti...</a>
My counter-argument is this: you could make a more extreme version of the statement like: "<i>the government</i> can't arrest you for what you say, but <i>the people</i> are free to reach for their pitchforks and lynch you". Which isn't true, the government must also protect you from arbitrary violence. The fact that violence perpetrated via social media (harassment, stalking, mobbing) cannot realistically be prosecuted, doesn't invalidate the principle that people should be protected from it.
The comic contains an important factual (not legal or ethical) error. It claims "the <i>people listening</i> think you're an asshole, and they're showing you the door."<p>This is incorrect - it's not "the people listening" that are showing you the door, but the corporations mediating your speech, <i>despite</i> having willing listeners.<p>Edit as reply because I am "posting too fast": <i>RPM didn't write "your listeners", just "the people listening"?</i><p>"The people listening" is not an accurate or honest term for "social and other media corporations", even if some of their board-members sometimes listen to some of the speakers they eventually censor.