Was that Censorship*?

What the heck should Free Speech mean? Was that thing really Censorship?

Spoiler: free speech does not mean that every platform - e.g. town hall or media network - should be available, as of right, to anyone who wants access to it.

Here's the principle in the positive: You can say what you like, to whom you like, using your own resources, or the resources of people who are happy to give, lend or sell them to you^ 

And in the negative: you have no 'right' to access the resources of people & organizations that don't wish to help you or your project^

^ With a mighty big caveat on government owned resources.

Cases in Point

So if you live in Lewiston Idaho, and want to speak at the Lewiston City Hall but you're prevented from doing so purely because of the nature of your views, then yep, that's censorship.

Substitute any venue in Idaho owned by the Idaho State Government, or any venue in the US owned by the US Government. Still censorship. 

What about speaking in a public place someplace in the US? Here your rights as a US resident or citizen come into play. You should have the same right as anyone else. If you don't, that's censorship.

What about your right to speak at the Bellingham WA City Hall. Well, you don't live there and you don't pay taxes there. If you want to speak at the Bellingham City Hall, you will have to ask them, and they can say 'yes' or 'no'. It's entirely up to them. That's not censorship.

Same scenario but now you want to speak at the UCLA and they knock you back. Unless you're a resident of California, that's also not censorship.

Same scenario but you'd quite like to talk on a privately owned University (say Stanford) or radio or TV network and they tell you to hit the road. Sorry, they get to decide who has access to their resources, and it doesn't have to include you. Not censorship. 

Government

Government is a special case. It is not OK for government to make its media platforms - Australia's ABC for example - available to some people or groups of people, but not others. Apart from equality principles, taxpayers paid for 100% of these. 

Since these are finite resources that are inevitably highly sought after, in practice Governments should attempt to give all groups and views access, perhaps in proportion to their prevalence in the population. It's always going to be a rough calculus, but it's a calculus that has to be attempted.

Boycotts

Free speech doesn't mean a free ride.  Boycotts are also a freedom and 100% legitimate. 

People have an absolute right to boycott any person or organisation which promote views they don't like, and they don't have to explain why.

Boycotts are not censorship.

Freedom From Consequences?

Free speech does not mean freedom from (lawful) consequences.

The US Nazi who got punched in the face should not have been punched in the face, because that was not a lawful response. OK, I laughed too and shouldn't have. 

Lower down on the scale, other peoples' right to freedom of speech means they are totally entitled to talk back, shout back, (gasp) rudely talk over you, say mean things about you and make jokes about you. You can do it to them to if you want.

While you have the right to say what you want others need not listen in silence. It might be rude, but it's not censorship. 

In the extreme worst case, if someone is right in your face shouting down every word you say, or a crowd jeers so loudly that no-one can hear you, then yes, that is a form of censorship and they shouldn't do it.


* Not thinking of anyone in particular.