So then your points 1 & 2 are the status quo i.e. no one can force you to amplify the voice of another and point 3 is the other end. Thus your assertion that I’m employing a straw man argument is shown to be baseless and was little more than a distraction intended to suggest my viewpoint was extreme and unreasonable.
In fact I do see the difference between my position that no one should be forced to amplify the voice of others or to provide them with a forum to reach a larger audience and your position that this, the current condition, creates inequality in the freedom of speech we all enjoy which suggests that this inequality is somehow unjust due to factors like “being denied by owners of private platform that other people use to spread their ideas”. That difference being that we simply do not have the right to be heard and that being heard is not a condition of being free to speak your mind. Additionally no one has the right to tell others that they must listen to viewpoints they view as offensive or to provide them a forum for which to spread their ideas.
So, your general thesis that the lack of equal access to private speaking platforms is unjust or diminishes free speech is one that I roundly reject as being without merit since there is no justice to be had in forcing people to provide support to a position they feel is unworthy of amplification.
