Sure, no violation of freedom of speech by the letter of the law. Mission accomplished I suppose.

But instead we have structures and institutions funneling inconvenient opinions and lived experiences into the fringe - bit by bit - so that they may fizzle in silence.

And on an interview with the veneer of “regular people’s opinions”, why is this particular opinion being met with repulsion? Why would a journalist seek an opinion and determine this guy’s isn’t the “right opinion”? Why would an interviewer who is working as a professional chase a vapid discussion about nostalgia?