Those concepts are inherently fuzzy and related in messy ways. Back in the day, AT&T claimed that it had built its long-distance network, and that it was in its rights to exclude others from using it. The effect of this was monopoly, however, so regulators stepped in and new laws were passed.

If "de-platforming" has the effect of censorship, then it might as well be censorship. If de-platforming resulted in no-one wanting to listen to certain speakers, then it would be private citizens convincing other private citizens in a way consistent with democratic values. But in actuality, de-platforming as practiced on college campuses often results in a group of people too intimidated to talk and too intimidated to attend, contrary to their desires. It's not convincing people. It's threatening and bullying them while just avoiding running afoul of law enforcement. (Or, in some cases, showing up in large enough numbers to frustrate law enforcement.)

Would you really call those people anti-establishment? They voted in favour of the corruption of the political system

Do you actually believe that all of them knew that's what they were doing? I know for a fact that some subset of them want the system to get more corrupt, so it will collapse sooner. David Pakman recently interviewed an ex-white supremacist who claimed that subgroup voted for Trump so the system would fail sooner.

No, they're really not. The one has a strict legal definition and is enshrined in law, and the others don't and aren't.

"But in actuality, de-platforming as practiced on college campuses often results in a group of people too intimidated to talk and too intimidated to attend, contrary to their desires. "

And what about the people who have felt intimidated by the hate speech and haven't attended because of that?

"If "de-platforming" has the effect of censorship, then it might as well be censorship."

But it isn't censorship. That person can speak their views outside of that building. They are only prohibited from having a platform to spread their views. They can still publish a book of them and market it. Nobody has lost any of their rights, unless you're stating that you automatically have a right to enter any building and preach your views. Nobody would get upset if $person was denied entrance to a funeral home for preaching their views there, because we all understand that that is inappropriate behaviour.

A church can expell a person for preaching atheistic views, and nobody gets annoyed. But as soon as someone does it for a white supremacist, a nazi, andor a person preaching for the extermination of certain groups, it's suddenly "against their free speech".

Or, for an even better example, think of twitter as a publishing company. If I go to twitter with a book (tweet), they are not legally obliged to publish it. The fact that they do not wish to publish it, or that they stop publishing it (removal of the tweet), is not an infringement of my free speech. I can start my own publishing company (with pretty much every website host), or go to another publishing company (like /pol/) to have my ideas heard. In addition, people writing to the publisher and stating that my book (tweet) should not be published, because of the views that are held in my book (tweet), that is also not an infringement of my free speech.

If the government decides that what I say is unseemly, and they purge it from all forms of media, from libraries, etc. and state that my views are not to be published, then that is censorship.

[An orthogonal point here is that people like yourself often argue that these people should not be able to write protests to the publisher (twitter). As per your own definition, wouldn't that count as infringement of their free speech? It's interesting how you readily support that views should not be removed, but condone that people should not be allowed to protest against views, or that people should not be allowed to write their point of views in emails and posts about twitter. Surely the right to advocate what you call 'censorship', falls under what you call 'free speech'?]

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. If such changes didn't happen, then wiretapping wouldn't be illegal and it would still be illegal to overfly someone's farm in an airplane. Hate speech existing as a legal term is evidence against what you say.

And what about the people who have felt intimidated by the hate speech and haven't attended because of that?

Can you point to specific instances of this happening?

A church can expell a person for preaching atheistic views, and nobody gets annoyed. But as soon as someone does it for a white supremacist, a nazi, andor a person preaching for the extermination of certain groups, it's suddenly "against their free speech".

This is breathtaking intellectual dishonesty here. Preaching for the extermination of certain groups is hate speech. Are you saying that all de-platforming is only targeted at hate speech? In that case, you are simply lying. If not, then this is the dishonest tactic of trying associating your opponent with a villainous group.

If de-platforming were only focused against hate speech, there would be no debate, as hate speech is not protected speech. De-platforming, as practiced, is used to silence anything certain people don't like. As practiced, it's a form of group intimidation that uses the same mechanism of effect as hate speech. Hate speech only became a legal term recently. De-platforming on college campuses should also become something legally prohibited.

[An orthogonal point here is that people like yourself often argue that these people should not be able to write protests to the publisher (twitter). As per your own definition, wouldn't that count as infringement of their free speech? It's interesting how you readily support that views should not be removed, but condone that people should not be allowed to protest against views, or that people should not be allowed to write their point of views in emails and posts about twitter. Surely the right to advocate what you call 'censorship', falls under what you call 'free speech'?]

You do realize that you made a false assumption about my views here for weak probabalistic reasons, then proceeded to ascribe them to me? As a test: which logical fallacy is this? I've often seen this tactic online. There's even the same (il)logical structure, down to count and ordering of sentences. It's almost like it's deliberately taught to people!

Private companies have some property. Their property rights do not supercede human rights.

Then, another solution would be to dismantle the oligarchic model of economic management and provide the mass of people with the property rights of the platforms of their own free speech. But I suspect that our society isn't ready for anything that radical and must in the meantime merely hold private property accountable for its partnership with government to circumvent sovereignty restrictions.

You can't on the one hand say "people have the right to use Twitter free of harassment" because it's ubiquitous, but then on the other hand say Twitter has the right to censor or ban people whose views it as a company doesn't like. These are contrary positions.

Either Twitter is a "common carrier" and thus has the responsibility to ensure its users have a common standard of experience and ability to access regardless of their political views, or it's not and thus it can both censor users _and_ not respond to their specific concerns because nobody has an inherent right to access it.

You need to choose one of those two.

Common carrier also specifically lists certain communications as being prohibited, namely, that which obscene, intent to abuse, threaten, or harass another person.

At that point, it becomes the interpretation of what is harassment? Is it being swatted or stalked, or as it seems to be the trend that now, language or the crime of non similar thought can be considered harassment.

Twitter as a private company has the right to remove things that it finds abhorrent, such as hate speech (i.e. stating that jews should be killed, black people should be bred out of existence, etc.).

People can put pressure on twitter to change their policies on what they find abhorrent.

The people with those views can find or create other places to express them.

The argument with 'Twitter as a common carrier' is null and void, because twitter is not an ISP. Twitter clearly falls under "public forum", and is therefore able to state what sort of content it wants to host, and what sort of content it does not. This does not preclude the neonazis finding somewhere else to host their views, like /pol/. Because they can host their views somewhere else, it is not censorship.

Think of it like publishing. If a publishing company does not want to publish my book, that is not censorship. I can go to another publishing company, or start my own. If the government states that what I say is wrong, and enforces a purge of it from all libraries, servers, bookshops, media, etc. then that is censorship.