Not sure I referred to sources? I think I was leveraging Austin's work on speech acts to suggest that if you are prevented from doing anything with words, then your speech doesn't amount to anything. And then combining that with Habermas's idea of the public sphere...
-
to argue that if private companies dominate the public sphere, and if they exclude people or groups from the public sphere, they're in effect preventing people from having a political voice. I probably also referenced Miranda Fricker's work on epistemic injustice -
where the idea is that if your speech is automatically distrusted, or discounted, then again, you can't do things with words. Not sure if that helps. That's the sort of argument I tend to make about free speech.
