Is a broadcast license revocation a form of censorship? (Hint: No, it's not.)

For example, deleting redundant text, or cutting merely to fit the content into a limited space or time, isn't "suppression".

In one hand, they are explaining that free speech is the most (or one of the most) fundamental right, super hyper important: any speech is very valuable and without a full unregulated freedom of speech, society is loosing something that is very very important.

But on the other hand, they are also saying that speech is useless and powerless. They are saying that there is no consequence to speech (or that, for strange reason, the person speaking should be given credits for all the nice consequences and should be considered having no responsibility at all for all the bad consequences).

I understand better why other rights (freedom of movement, right to own things, freedom of religion, access to health, maintaining justice, ...) are fundamental. I also understand why some of these are still restricted (freedom of movement: yes but with passport and in respect of property, right to own things: yes but you cannot claim whatever you want to be yours, freedom of religion: yes but without bothering too much your neighbourgs, access to health: yes but if it costs you have to pay, maintaining justice: yes but at some point the jury will decide and may be wrong, ...).

I don't understand why freedom of speech is such exception that it has no restriction.

If you remove information for the reasons you stated there are ways to indicate to the reader that more information still exists but was not included (for example “…” “[article]”). That’s just editing because it preserves the intent of the author.

If these are not employed, the information was censored/suppressed even if it was to correct bad writing.

For example, it is the people in power how decide and enforce border control and restricted area delimitation. And it is people in power who decide how the healthcare system works.

This argument is basically a slippery slope fallacy: freedom of speech should be absolute, because I can imagine some restrictions being used for bad it means there should be no restriction at all.

I perfectly understand why 0 freedom of speech at all is bad. My question is why people are framing the situation as "it's 100% or 0%" and why they are doing that only with the freedom of speech and not all the other rights.

I don't know, but one explanation can be that with an unrestricted freedom of speech, they can profit of not having to assume the responsibility for their acts while they will themselves not have much damage done to them. It is not the case for the other rights: usually, saying that I want 0 or 100% freedom of movement means that I either can't move myself or either have to accept a migration that I don't like. But if I use freedom of speech to create a dangerous climate upon some minority groups I don't like, I have interest of defending the 100% freedom of speech: they can themselves use the freedom of speech to say whatever they want, it will not convince the majority, because they are in minority.

> It allows people to change each other’s minds in both directions based on who has the most persuasive argument rather than who has the biggest stick.

One remark on that: "the most persuasive argument" can be as bad as "the biggest stick". Between "it's easy, it's all due to this ethnic minority" and "it's complicated, we have to accept we have some part of responsibility in this situation, yet it does not mean the other camp is all innocent, but it does not mean the other camp is intrinsically guilty, ...", the first one is more persuasive, but it is very unjust, and it is as bad as being slave to the biggest stick. The only difference is that with the biggest stick, the common guy is the victim, with this example of derive of the most persuasive argument, the common guy not the victim. But an unjust situation does not become magically just because the victim is not you.