Many people smugly note that the Constitution only stops the state from punishing speech. Private parties are free to do whatever they want (including blacklisting the speakers), and those silly free speech defenders are confusing the state with private parties.
But that misses the bigger point, which is that the Constitutional guarantee originates from the principle that free exchange of ideas is a social good. The founders believed in free speech because they believed in enlightenment and in pursuit of truth. They were unafraid of ideas.
These blacklisters fundamentally have an anti-enlightenment mentality, as they have elegantly shown. Yarvin's most basic point in his writings was not that different people are different (this is so obvious that truthful people do not dispute it, although the anti-enlightenment types find it convenient for trying witches), but that the modern Left polices against heresy with the rigor of the Christian church of the long ago past.
It is fitting then that events in Yarvin's life should form a well-publicized proof of his main point.
But that misses the bigger point, which is that the Constitutional guarantee originates from the principle that free exchange of ideas is a social good. The founders believed in free speech because they believed in enlightenment and in pursuit of truth. They were unafraid of ideas.
These blacklisters fundamentally have an anti-enlightenment mentality, as they have elegantly shown. Yarvin's most basic point in his writings was not that different people are different (this is so obvious that truthful people do not dispute it, although the anti-enlightenment types find it convenient for trying witches), but that the modern Left polices against heresy with the rigor of the Christian church of the long ago past.
It is fitting then that events in Yarvin's life should form a well-publicized proof of his main point.