His thesis is that religious content has some kind of innate right to be on all media platforms even when espousing deeply offensive or hateful language. This struck me as so appallingly entitled, that I had to respond. Knowing the topic, and the hypersensitive persecution complex of the group in question, I expect it will not be printed. But since I have a blog, I don't have to wait. The following is the complete text of my letter:
The right to free speech is a right to speak, not a right to be heard on every media platform you want. If a religious group's doctrine is so radical that a media platform feels uncomfortable you should look at the content. Are they propagating sexism, homophobia, or racism? In those cases it's acceptable for them to decline to carry your content. Dismissing this as censorship is arrogant and entitled.
Being stymied by Apple, Facebook et al. is frustrating no doubt. But it's the same response you might get from a print publication, or from a broadcaster when you bring them questionable content. This is not overt censorship. They are not obligated to taint their brand and/or their product with your hate-speech. If you want a media platform that is wide open to troglodyte opinions; build your own, the internet is a big place. There's plenty of room.
Arcane Radio Trivia