> Sorry, but it is a historical fact that "strict legal definitions" are fuzzy, and the definition of a "right" changes with technology and cultural changes.
I am not arguing for some wishy-washy hypothetical future that may or may not exist, I am arguing about the present. Currently the law enshrines your right to hold an opinion openly, just not in certain contexts, based on the opinion. It does not (as I have stated) enshrine your right to have that opinion heard or published, and so therefore does not cover de-platforming.
> De-platforming, as practiced, is used to silence anything certain people don't like.
Do you have a source for this? I've only ever heard of it used to remove speakers that discriminate against minorities (eg. Milo, Spencer, et al. ad nauseum), and, in the twitter case, to condone removing anti-semites (which clearly falls under hate speech), or to condone removing groups of posters recently created, that all spam certain individials to troll them by "arguing" with them (this actually falls under "harassment" legislation in some places. Incidentally this has happened personally, when I tweeted that I enjoy reporting anti-semites on twitter, seconds later my mentions were filled with a mixture of people and bots whom have never interacted with me before, all spewing hatred at me).
> If de-platforming were only focused against hate speech, there would be no debate, as hate speech is not protected speech.
This is an indirect tautology.
> Are you saying that all de-platforming is only targeted at hate speech? In that case, you are simply lying.
Perhaps providing an evidencial claim here would better serve your needs. So far you have not actually addressed any of my arguments, you have simply called it weak, stated that I am lying, and stated that I am wrong in a different world, with different laws. You then have the audacity to state that I am making a logical fallacy! You have yet to produce a firm, non-tautological argument, or produce any evidence for any of your claims. You also seem to have taken it upon yourself to ignore the main section of my argument. I will respond only when you do this, since engaging with someone who argues in an intellectualy dishonest manner is wasteful of my time.
> You do realize that you made a false assumption about my views here for weak probabalistic reasons, then proceeded to ascribe them to me?
You make, almost word for word, the same argument as the people I was referring to, so it seemed safe that you would share the same views, as well. I admit I could have been mistaken, however you have not addressed any of the (rather valid) points I made in that same section. As you bring up logical fallacies, it might be prudent for you to read this one: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy