Why should audiophile deniers be allowed on an audiophile forum?

I cannot determine if he is feigning naivety or being disingenuous in the assertion that "if one is really intent on getting out their message , go to the nearest public square.....". The public square is unfortunately now social media and internet forums.

This site in not part of the public square. This is a private site. The internet in general under certain circumstances is considered "public". In other words as long as there is somewhere on the internet, even if it’s one site already in existence or one you start where you can " air your grievances" then your Free Speech rights have not been violated.

Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter.....these are now THE conduit for information worldwide. When that happens, a site owner loses some flexibility in my eyes.

Wrong, only the conduit that carries the message, the wires or wireless, not the owner of the vehicles "Facebook etc.." traveling the wire is protected. You cannot be refused access to the internet, the wire, based on your Free Speech rights you can most certainly be banned from the vehicles.

This is the problem in a nutshell. To many people do not understand how the First amendment protects your Free Speech rights from intrusion or punishment from the Government and even then there are still limits. At least in the United States not sure about the rest of the world.

To make an analogy, Newspapers can censor or refuse to print what you say. The government  or competing newspapers cannot keep your from printing and circulating your own newspaper.  You want the world to know how much of an AH you are , start a blog. 

@djones51 : you nailed it! Well put & explained. 

That is a nice fantasy world you live in @djones51 , BUT, we have payment companies cancelling people, we have ISP’s cancelling people.

Obviously there is a need for much stronger laws in this current technical environment to protect free speech. WHY? Because government has allowed private companies to take on responsibility for what would have traditionally been at some level "public utilities".

Banks, Credit Card companies, ISPs, etc. and other government regulated entities should not be allowed to refuse service unless the intended usage is illegal.

That has benefits to both the public with w.r.t. to protecting both not only the concept of free speech, but also for these entities as they stop being targets for malicious public abuse by the "mob".

We need to be concerned with more than just the present legal definition of free speech and start acting on the principle of free speech and what enables (or disables it).

These "private" entities such as Banks, ISPs, Credit Card companies rely on the good will of government and public to operate, whether it is access to virtual money to lend, public physical property on which to run their cables, even roads to transport goods.

Keep in mind, I am no way advocating socialism, simply that the Government needs to be for the people and needs to look out for the best interests of people more than they currently are.

We have enshrined protections preventing discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, gender, ....... but perhaps are missing the big picture, discrimination for what you think.

@mapman + lots 

We have enshrined protections preventing discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, gender, ....... but perhaps are missing the big picture, discrimination for what you think.

I’ve yet to see any laws discriminating on what you think. Using platforms as a vehicle for hate, oppression, and elimination have to be regulated. Anything less is a fool’s idea of utopia.

This reminds me of the movie Forbidden Planet, where they find an old and great civilization that created a machine that could materialize everyone’s thoughts, wishes and imaginings, and in one night, they killed themselves in a mass genocide.

One scientist who tried the machine and died of it, said before passing on,
     "creatures from the Id...".

All the best,
Nonoise