I'm not suggesting otherwise, but he has also admitted that the liberal approach is more down to the lack of moderators available than any policy of 'free speech'. And I have just had one of my posts censored.
I maintain my assertion: free speech cannot exist because it is not fundamentally possible except under very contingent conditions, due to human nature.
Even during the height of English liberalism in the late 19th. century, there were blasphemy and obscenity laws in this country and these were enforced in the criminal courts right into the 20th. century. We now have 'ideological' blasphemy laws in the various Public Order Acts and other statutes.
As I have said, your examples are a separate issue to the one I raised. The initial post, to which you responded, where I suggested that we needed a "healthy debate" was obviously in the context of the limited "Overton window" terms of debate in our media currently. That was clear from the previous posts.
The issue of insults, victims, abusers and gaslighting that you raised is a straw man. Your posts supposedly being censored is also an entirely separate issue and not really a free speech issue. The "censoring" in question being merely the redacting of you calling other posters "sad wankers". If your posts are deemed outside the loosely applied rules of this forum by the owner/mods, it is not a curtailment of your free speech anyway.
The provider of the space for our discussions, is entitled to set the "rules of the house". Not allowing abusive language to other posters is just the same as anyone not allowing it in their home to other guests. It doesn't stop you saying it, if that is how you want to frame free speech, just not in this house.
There is a real issue with the lack, or limited terms, of discussion in our media about issues of vital importance. Foreign affairs, in particular, and also the limited terms of political and economic discussion. The Michael Hudson video was an example of how our media and politicians limit the terms of debate.
Foreign affairs are the most egregious example. Media and politicians all sing from the same sheet. The US/UK populations have zero say on the foreign misadventures conducted via our governments and dissent is not allowed. Nobody in the mainstream media will stray outside of the accepted terms of debate on Syria, Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela and on and on. They all know that their jobs depend on knowing that Assad, the "Mullahs", Putin, Xi (or the chinese generally), Maduro and on and on are evil and that we should save(insert "minority group here) from the (insert "evil dictator" here) doing (insert unspeakably evil deed here). The script is entirely predictable and the obvious lies that it is based on are discussed openly in other media around the world.
Israeli aggression against Palestinians as well as Syria, Iran and on and on is discussed openly, even in Israeli media, but is extremely limited in "western democracies" where any criticism of the apartheid state is deemed antisemitism and discussion of Israel is limited in politics and media.
A call for a "healthy debate, which is by definition robust and confrontational at times", is an obvious reference to issues like the above, not a call for calling other posters "sad wankers" in someone's house.
