There are, broadly speaking, two categories of people who advocate for free speech: civil libertarians who advocate for free speech on principle, and people with unpopular opinions that tend to face censorship.
In 20th century America, between approximately Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio, those “people with unpopular opinions that tend to face censorship” tended to be the ones on the far left—socialists, communists, draft resisters—who fell victim to sedition and anti-syndicalism laws. As of 2021, there is no realistic threat of the far left being censored, but there are calls to censor the far right, many of which are based on the exact same arguments that once justified those sedition and anti-syndicalism laws. This has caused the far left to abandon the cause of free speech (since it is no longer tactically useful for them) and the far right to take it up (because it is tactically useful for them).
> As of 2021, there is no realistic threat of the far left being censored
This is entirely inaccurate, as most discussions about labeling AntiFa a 'terrorist organization' will show, and the huge investment many large companies make for preventing unionization. It is true that some people on the far left believe this, but they are entirely wrong.
AFAIK, US law actually has no provision for designating domestic terrorist organizations, so it’s not clear what that would entail.
In any case, your examples seem to have more to do with freedom of association than freedom of expression, which is also important but not what I was talking about.
Well, if the president of the USA and half of the Senate are truly considering labeling AntiFa a terrorist organization, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if pro-AntiFa videos started getting demonetized and even banned. I would be very surprised if pro-unionization content weren't already in this area.
As an example of how "extreme"-left information is kept out, have you seen even one piece of news in the US or Europe in January 2020 or since about the largest organized strike in human history? An estimated 200 million people strike in India.
> As of 2021, there is no realistic threat of the far left being censored
The laws from 20th-century America are still on the books and are still being enforced. I have literally heard of people who, today, cannot advocate for their far-left political views because it imperils their immigration status. Here is a reminder from the USCIS as of two months ago that membership in any Communist party causes you to be ineligible to become a permanent resident: https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-issues-policy-guidan...
Meanwhile, in the court of public opinion, here is someone self-censoring their left-but-nowhere-near-far-left position (a fairly mainstream position) and being attacked for their beliefs by a right-wing media outlet that, ordinarily, claims to support free speech: https://thefederalist.com/2020/12/30/wannabe-jeopardy-host-k...
> cannot advocate for their far-left political views because it imperils their immigration status.
That sounds pretty bad. It sounds to me like laws that attack human rights and speech are often used to hurt many people on all different sides of an issue.
And it sounds like if we want to stop those bad things that you brought up from happening, that we need to ensure that our laws do a better job of protecting free speech.
That's definitely what it sounds like to me, too! But I have never seen a single free speech advocate actually say "We should repeal the part of the immigration law that says you can be denied US citizenship based on membership in a US political party." So I conclude that whatever free speech advocates are advocating, it's not what it sounds like.
One group advocating for 1 set of laws and protections that protect human rights should not stop you from attempting to protect other similar human rights.
Your response to a group trying to protect certain rights that are related but not exactly the same as another set of rights, should not be you trying to fight against attempts to protect those rights.
Instead, what you should be doing is fight in favor of more protections for these rights, instead of fighting to have less protections.
More protections for humans rights are better. You should advocate for people to go even further than they are currently doing now, instead of concluding that you don't want these human rights to exist at all.
> The laws from 20th-century America are still on the books and are still being enforced.
Many of them were ruled unconstitutional by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Legal conditions for immigration and naturalization are an interesting legal problem though.
In 20th century America, between approximately Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio, those “people with unpopular opinions that tend to face censorship” tended to be the ones on the far left—socialists, communists, draft resisters—who fell victim to sedition and anti-syndicalism laws. As of 2021, there is no realistic threat of the far left being censored, but there are calls to censor the far right, many of which are based on the exact same arguments that once justified those sedition and anti-syndicalism laws. This has caused the far left to abandon the cause of free speech (since it is no longer tactically useful for them) and the far right to take it up (because it is tactically useful for them).