Yeah it's not. It's right wing propaganda trying to pass off the disregard of right wing propaganda by the wider community as some kind of attack on free speech when in truth we are just sick of the bs lies and manipulation and low grade propaganda as promoted by mouthpieces like sky news.
Fake argument promoting the agenda of questionable institutions.
I'm sorry, can you explain what is "right wing" about this? It sounds like you a grasping for a label because you don't like Shellenberger's reporting.
For example from the article: "In Germany, a court ordered the American writer C.J. Hopkins to either go to jail or pay 3,600 Euros for comparing the covid lockdowns to the Nazis."
If I think this is wrong, does that make me "right wing"? Why then is discourse not permissible according to you? I guess my other question for you is, are these definitions accurate?
Hate speech = Speech that I or an institution doesn't like
Right wing = People that I or an institution doesn't like
The sooner we resolve these questions, the sooner we can actually discuss something like intellectuals and not like children.
Because the guy is literally parroting waffle from right wing propaganda machines as if it's well thought out commentary. When it's not. It's just blatant propaganda with disregard for the truth.
"A blockbuster new investigation by Australia’s SkyNews"
Is the giveaway language.
Propaganda mouth pieces. Not even worth including their opinion in debate as it's rarely even grounded in truth. I've never read the author before. But if they are trying to pass off sky or their commentary as anything other than comedy their shills.
So which of the foundations mentioned in the article are you working for? You are clearly not intending to engage in good faith, and defer to smearing techniques.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37253794