Free speech as getting to say what you think, versus getting to say it loudly enough to have an impact. It’s about access. Anyone can mutter their true thoughts on a street corner or in an obscure blog. Steyn and Levant have always been able to say what they want, from platforms reaching large audiences, and been paid well enough for it to make a decent living. Those enraged by them, who charge and sue, have little opportunity to respond on that level; so they go the depressive, negative route of trying to shut them down legally. Believe me, if they were offered equivalent access as an alternative, they’d grab it.
So Salutin defends the censors of free in the name of free speech.
In his mind, if your words resonate with millions of people, but your opposition can't respond in kind, well that's unfair. They're entitled to an equal platform.
I have some advice for those who feel enraged:
Start your own blogs. Write your own columns.
Stop trying to leech off of those who have created their own hard-earned platforms.
Remember how the people who sued Mark Steyn wanted Macleans to offer them space in their publication?
That to me summarizes their mentality and their problem.
Lots of ordinary citizens, such as myself, start their own blogs, and develop an audience.
You would have to be naive to think that they would stop suing if they only had a way to respond in kind.
The purpose of the lawsuits is to shut these people up or make them pay for their opinions.