Why?

No such thing as free speech.
Say the wrong thing to someone you will find out the cost.

MSNBC strategist says Dems must win midterms to save ‘democracy’ from ‘radical, extreme, authoritarian’ GOP.

^Free speech that is allowed^.

Durham: CIA found Clinton campaign lawyer's data alleging Trump-Russia collusion was 'user created'.

^free speech that no one ever heard^.

Everyone knows that most in the media have an agenda. Right and left. What do you propose Marty? A dictator of your choosing with a state controlled press?

There is also a cost in not speaking & Virtual Signaling Cancel Culture is all about getting on a High Horse and destroying folks even if they are telling the truth. Thus balance can only be found in the exchange of free speech. Deplatforming is way too popular among the pretend truth elites versus the irony of hypocrisy in silencing others. A debate that I take heart from in protecting free speech & allowing me to weigh my own ability to find my truth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkSBfdXNWWk&t=171s

At 43 Billion to own a communications platform it is not about "free" speech. There is a price some are willing to pay to control speech.

Bryce

More on who has free speech:

Yeah, so lets talk about it ... FREELY ... for a change.

EXCLUSIVE — Outgoing White House press secretary Jen Psaki's use of her official position to disparage the competitor of her prospective future employer warrants an investigation by the Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Justice, a watchdog group said Tuesday.

Psaki publicly disparaged MSNBC competitor Fox News during an appearance Thursday on the left-wing podcast Pod Save America, saying the cable news network "might make anyone sound like a stupid son of a b****" in reference to White House reporter Peter Doocy. The outgoing press secretary said the following day on Twitter she was not being critical of Doocy or any reporter at Fox News, but the watchdog group Protect the Public's Trust said the damage is already done.

Despite her statements to the contrary, she appears to be willing to simply plow through without any regard to these additional obligations," Chamberlain said. "Her latest — the demeaning of Fox News, a competitor of her prospective employer, while seeming to act in her official capacity — appears to be a misuse of her official position. Under the circumstances, it’s hard to see how the American public would not perceive the appearance of a conflict of interest."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...mp;cvid=9dc22fc4fe8443bf8acb4f1a21fdd0df

I don’t think free speech is a issue until someone is denied it. Antitrust issued are possible but as some near the top has already noted,Mathis field is clogged with public platforms..

Hate mail is not a form of free speech, and can be suppressed if it violates a platform’s rules. Same for false threats, even if meant as a joke. Ask Qanon if in doubt. They have a track record of threatening, unfounded, statements about cannibalism.

What makes you think that it's about controlling free speech? Perhaps its about taking current controls off of speech?

Most people only champion free speech when the speaker says what they want to hear.

I dont twitter or facebook. I dont really care who owns either one. Never hear anything good about them no matter who is talking.

Free press IS a big deal. I will load my rifle to protect it.

Since outlets have the freedom to broadcast their own perspective you ARE going to hear stuff that raises your blood pressure. That happens with freedom.

Boco, the reaction to free speech your describing comes from being rude on the part of the speaker. Rudeness and free speech are not synonyms.

Good friend of mine keeps telling me that media telling a lie should be prosecutable. I do not agree. Who ever gets to decide what the truth is will have to much authority over free people. Almost daily you hear people here on TMan saying which news outlet they prefer. Media is primarily a business. That keeps lies down to a dull roar. Expressing opinion and acting like its reporting is most definitely protected speech and it should be. Again, I will load my rifle to protect that.

Free speech and free press keeps us strong. Twitter and face book do NOT have to be participated in. I do neither and dont feel I am missing a thing. If you dont like their narrative why do you sign up??????????????????????????????????????

I see a problem when a private platform uses it's power and money to change the outcome of elections.

Folks seem to forget "Free Speech," is sister to another & just as important rule of Law. That rule of law if you use lies or slander to control speech you can & should be charged. This is where "Free Speech," when done for truth is failing because Government is busy diverting the attention to the lies & allowing the lies to increase the violence & riots we see today. The press & Media should face the courts more often for misleading the public through slander for political gain & then cover from politicians who benefit from division.

Mira who gets to decide what is slander and lies? The same government spreading slander and lies?

Slander today is a civil matter. Needs to stay that way. The person being slandered suing the person or entity that slandered them. The person or entity being sued given the option of a bench trial or a jury.

Exactly

Ask the Sandman or Rittenhouse where slander laws in Court can defeat Government & Media misleads, Danny. Slander laws & Free speech must be sister laws to each other & it is up to the voters to make sure of those important distinctions.

What makes you think that it's about controlling free speech? Perhaps its about taking current controls off of speech?[/quote]

Exactly
I also feel that free speech is a two-edged sword & it is up to us to figure out that being gullible or misinformed is diametrically opposed to not being correctly informed at all. Lately, the difference has been that the public was not given the truth about some pretty nefarious political games which have detrimentally affected the whole of North America.