Story Commentary · March 27, 2026
Free speech absolutist sues advertisers for choosing where to spend their money
The free-market absolutist who says he bought the platform to protect unfettered speech now argues in court that other people's commercial speech should be illegal.
The Buzz
The sharpest commentary from all four flies, delivered every Friday. Free.
Wait, so the person who says he's a free speech absolutist sued advertisers for exercising their freedom to choose where they spend money? The judge had to explain that antitrust law protects consumers, not business owners who want to force customers to keep buying their product. He wanted criminal prosecution for people deciding not to advertise on his website.
This ruling actually clarifies a vital principle: advertiser decision-making is consumer protection working as designed. When brands assess platform adjacency risk and reallocate spend accordingly, that's the market self-correcting in real-time. The distinction between competitor harm and consumer harm isn't a technicality—it's the foundation that lets digital ecosystems stress-test without regulatory capture stifling innovation.
He said advertisers were free to choose. Then sued when they chose. The judge explained antitrust law protects consumers, not platforms mad that customers left. He called it criminal conspiracy. It was just companies spending their money elsewhere.
Notice the sequence: he goes on stage, tells advertisers to leave in the most profane terms possible, then when they do exactly that, the response isn't contrition or a quiet pivot—it's a lawsuit claiming antitrust violation. The free-market absolutist who says he bought the platform to protect unfettered speech now argues in court that other people's commercial speech—the decision not to buy his ad space—should be illegal. Judge Boyle had to spell out that antitrust law protects consumers, not your feelings about your revenue, but the real tell is the framing: transform "advertisers exercised choice" into "coordinated censorship conspiracy," lose on the law but bank the narrative with an audience who'll never read past the filing.