People who have never sat down to attend a one hour course on human rights and international human rights law were really trying to drag free speech into the mix yesterday and it ended in premium tears.

Self education is important, especially on the things you think you know.

Free speech does not include shouting 'Fire' in a crowded cinema for bants. You will be prosecuted.

Free speech does not include shouting in a library where silence is the rule, you will be kicked out.

Free speech is freedom from undemocratic censorship BY THE GOVERNMENT.

And there are established tests in international human rights law to decide whether a govt control of speech is right or wrong. These are the tests of legality, proportionality, and necessity.

Again, these tests don't apply to private entities blocking speech - only to a govt.

When a law says you cannot defame other people or you will be liable, this is govt control of speech. But it passes because it is control meant to protect other people's rights (therefore legal and necessary) and punishment is a fine, not jail (therefore proportional).

When a law says you cannot insult the president or you will be jailed, this is also govt control of speech. But it is unlawful (the president has no right not to be insulted), unnecessary (the president will not die if insulted), and not not proportionate (jail for an insult?).

But free speech doesn't include compelling anyone to listen to anyone else. Just as you have a right to speak, others have a right to mute you from their hearing.

As long as the muting is not forced or controlled by the govt, then it remains outside the issue of free speech.