> People were out protesting the murders of black men by police, and you refer to them as looters and rioters in your prior comments
No, I referred to people who were looting and rioting.
Also, it was not murder. George Floyd case was manslaughter at best. I think it is not even manslaughter, but I'm not a lawyer. Again, as I said before, it's hard to talk to people who redefine words for their advantage.
> along with some defenses of Gab/Parler - both of which I was banned from for posting things that weren't right wing enough. Great freedom of speech there. I was cancelled by the right!
It is called deplatforming, not cancelling. If that's true, shame on them! Show me the proof, I'm condemn both of these platforms.
> If I choose to shop somewhere else because I think your products suck, or because I disagree with your views, I'm not reducing the total freedom of speech - I am using my right, in a semi-free market, to give business to whomever I choose.
Yes. But if you dig 10 years old tweet, and then demand a company to fire an employee, and gather a big crowd, that is cancelling.
By the way, my personal policy is to ignore companies which participate in any political activity, whether they support gay rights, christian rights, nazi rights, black rights, human rights, animal rights or whatever, I don't care, I would pick a company which just sells a product. Simply because dividing society is bad, and I support companies which do not do that.
> Free speech doesn't mean you get to do anything you want, and besides which, there are already limits on it - speech that incites violence, things like yelling "fire"
Technically it does limit free speech. And limiting free speech is sometimes acceptable, when it is universally acceptable. Only a dozen of knuckleheads would support freedom to shout "fire" in a theater.
> do you bitch when AMC won't show a movie that isn't rated by the MPAA? Is that "censorship" or is it a business exercising their right to not show something they disagree with?
It is not freedom of speech issue for several reasons: they are not monopoly, their resource is limited, there are children who watch TV etc.
> I get the the right has never really had to suffer any consequences ever, at least in America, for anything, so this may be a little disconcerting. Go ahead and look up how many right wing groups the FBI/CIA infiltrated just for being right wing
Technically it was never? just because they are left wing, US has so many laws, there's a law to harass anyone. Ruby Ridge was one of many case where right-leaning people were harassed by the government. But I agree, until recently, left wing were harassed by the government more often.
That statement of yours looks like you are willing to retaliate against rights for injustices of the past. This is very shortsighted, let alone inhumane. Those FBI/CIA agents and their bosses are long dead. Don't punish children for the sins of their fathers.
> Have you been teargassed or arrested for exercising your supposed right to free speech?
I can tell you my story, and there are unpleasant parts in it, believe me, I know what I'm talking about. But that story is not for this website, we can continue in e-mail if you wish. farright@altmails.com is a redirect e-mail.
Anyway, I'm always on the side of those oppressed. When free speech is restricted for someone, I'm all for them regardless of their political views, lefts, rights, jews, arabs, blacks, whites, gays, christians, nazis, doesn't matter. When peaceful protesters get arrested, again, they have my full support regardless of their views. But when people start burning buildings because of police incident resulting in non-intentional killing of junkie criminal resisting arrest, they have no my support.