So much for freedom of speech.
Micro:
Although this venue is open to the public, it is privately owned. Freedom of speak really doesn't apply. Those who own and/or run the site are well within their rights to restrict or limit speech in whatever way they choose, regardless of whether or not we out here in the cheaper seats agree with their decisions, find those decisions reasonable, or like those decisions.
Walmart is a private venue. They have every right to restrict the kinds of speech they will allow on-site. They have the right, for example, to escort you off the premises if they discover you in the vestibule handing out pamphlets decrying the use of slave labour in China, or flyers touting the prices at another store just down the road a piece.
A theatre is a private venue. They have every right to bounce you out the doors if you perch yourself on the edge of the stage during the opening act with your guitar, harmonica, and tip-jar.
My home is a private venue. I can restrict speech here in whatever fashion I wish, or to confine speech within whatever parameters I choose. If my three year old nephew has been spending too much time with his father, and becomes inspired to tell me to fuck off some afternoon when I tell him 'no' about something, I have the right to not give him a cookie. If an elderly harridan who looks like she was weaned on a pickle and whose face is so wrinkled it looks like it could hold a five day's rain appears at my door, trying to thrust her Jehovah's Witness brochures at me, I have a right to open my door brandishing a crucifix in one hand and a spay bottle of Holy Water in the other, and exclaim, 'Begone, vile harpy! Lest I baptise you with this Holy Water from the River Jordan, and touch this crucifix to your forehead to drive out your demons!' Or should the callers at my door prove to be two young Mormon gentlemen, well-built and good-looking, I am within my rights to tarry awhile with them on the front porch, enjoying the view, until I politely decline their offering, and to watch them as they move on down the street, very regretfully looking at their firm and well-rounded masculine buttocks and thinking ... well, I digress, and it's probably best to not go there, or we could be her until the cows come home or kingdom come, whichever comes first (no pun intended).
Macro:
Many -- and I'd have to say that should probably be
most -- people don't really believe in Free Speech. And I'm sorry to say that, from what you've written, you appear to be in that number. Many people believe they should have Free Speech, but aren't really concerned at all to have that right extended to someone who may disagree with their position, or who may hold a differing opinion. Many people want their own personal right upheld or enforced, while concurrently wanting the powers that be to abrogate the right of any other party to express a different opinion, or to offer any criticism whatsoever of their proposition, because they view their own personal right as absolute, and don't believe that right extends or is held by any other person. Many people expect their position to be heard, while at the same time expecting their neighbour's position to not be heard, or indeed even demanding that it not be heard.
Free Speech doesn't include anything about a right to not be disagreed with. There is nothing in it which precludes another person from having and expressing a different opinion. There is no constitutionally enshrined right to be wrong, nor is there anything in the right to say something goofy so sacrosanct as to act to limit anyone else's right to point out that one has, indeed, said something goofy.
Especially when the kingdom is comprised of nudists....
