Oh, because I don't agree with your particular brand of left-wing politics, I'm alt-right? Is it because I don't uncritically support Antifa? Or is there some other basis for your claim?
I'm done trying to argue with you. You didn't address my point. You took each of my statements about why I think your source was pure alt-right horse shit and did one of two things; either say "no, you're wrong" without actually making a point or say "no you're wrong" while linking to an article without actually making a point. You never even made your own argument. But that's not why I call you alt-right.
I call you alt-right because unfailingly do you parrot alt-right talking points. You show the same kind of complete lack of understanding of free speech. You trot out their buzzwords like "SJW" and "regressive left." You sea lion like them. You manage to find ways to agree with them on even the most idiotic of points. You're either alt-right or an alt-right sympathizer and only you seem to be blind to that.
You're only proving my point. Believe it or not, I actually thought your opinion might've been based on an innocent misunderstanding. But now, I know that I'm only "alt-right" because your definition of the term is hilariously broad. The term "regressive left" was coined by Maajid Nawaz, a Pakistani-British Muslim. My views on free speech were inspired in part by Frederick Douglass, hardly somebody I'd expect the alt-right to admire. If believing in the right to express unpopular opinions makes me alt-right, then I guess the ACLU is alt-right too. Your explanation of why you think I'm alt-right says a lot more about your ignorance and prejudices than any flaw on my part. Since I now know that we're working on fundamentally different definitions of the term, I'm just going to ignore any further accusations you might give.
But that doesn't mean I'm giving up hope on you. You're not stupid, and you have the capacity to learn. I'd just like to warn you that lumping everybody you disagree with into the same category never ends well. I used to make the mistake of doing that, and it came back to bite me in the ass. Don't let that happen to you.
What if you've already been given a platform, but a third party decides to try and take it away from you? Is that not censorship?
I want to focus on this one sentence in particular. It really depends on the actions of the third party in question. If they choose to use their free speech to remind those giving the platform that their actions may have financial or other consequences, or if they choose to protest or use their free speech to shout down the person given the platform using their own platform, then it's not censorship by any means. If they, oh, say...
Decide to shoot the people who are exercising their free speech rights, then that's obviously censorship. Among other things, like attempted murder.
Wholeheartedly agreed on the latter part, but not so much on the former.
Equally clear is the right to hear. To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.
Granting the right to speak but not the right to hear is like granting the right to sell but not the right to buy. Before you mistake my meaning, I don't have a problem with debate. Arguments are not censorship, they're responses. I don't have a problem with protesting speakers either. What I do mind is trying to prevent a speaker from being heard. When you do that, you are robbing their audience of their right to listen.
Consider the following scenario: George Takei is invited to speak about LGBT issues at Regent University by the school's Gay-Straight Alliance (for the purposes of this hypothetical scenario, let's pretend Regent has one). Some of the school's more vocally religious students take offense to what they believe he will say. They start a campaign to have the talk cancelled, claiming that what he's previously said is "violent" and "harmful". When that fails, they try to force the event's cancellation through intimidation. This time, they succeed. Was Mr. Takei censored? Was his audience wronged?