No. I wouldn't say that. Say, for example, that she's posting on a site like this and a moderator has a problem with what she's posting and bans her. I don't have any problem with that. I wouldn't say it's a free speech violation.
The overreaction in this case is that it wound up taking away her then-current source of income.
On my view, people are due food, housing, health care, etc. merely by the fact that they exist.Also: I don't immediately see the connection to the socialist views.
Thinking that something is morally wrong comes down to what's basically a disposition, preference or emotional reaction, so there's no difference.Do you object to the overreaction simply because you dislike overreactions (as you might, for example, dislike some foods) or do you regard the overreaction as morally wrong?
If I were king this wouldn't be an issue, because employment wouldn't hinge on private citizens' whims. Again, people are due things like employment simply by virtue of the fact that they exist on my view. Given the social structure that we have, I see it as a major problem that people can loose their source of income due to someone's whims as well as due to overreactions to speech and the like.And, morally, would you say that somebody who agrees to employ somebody else (to make a TV show) can choose to change their minds and remove the offer of employment without necessarily having to give a reason?
"Deplatforming" isn't a categorical problem. What's a problem is taking away someone's livelihood, their food, shelter, freedom (by way of imprisonment, say), and so on in response to speech.Obviously this relates back to de-platforming and whether it's morally acceptable for me to remove a speaking platform from someone simply because I've decided I don't like the cut of their jib anymore.