"Not allowed to be broadcast"?
Man, these people think they can wave their magic wand of opinion and decide who gets to speak........
Years ago, in "Earth in the Balance", Al Gore made a point connected to this idea, and at least at the time - I agreed with it.
His idea was that, just because there are two opposing views on a matter does not mean, they have equal standing.
As an example, he gave the idea of a news broadcast with a panel of two opposing views - one, that the Earth is flat, and the other, that it is round.
The presumption is, on subjects we don't know about, is that there is an even divide between two opposing views - that both carry equal value and have rational support. But in the example - that's obviously not the case. One is a widely proven and known quantity understood by all humankind - and the other is a crazy idea held only by loons. That being the case, you don't need to have a live and let live attitude about it, because one is right, and the other is extremely wrong, and so wrong you wonder why anyone gives them an audience.
UNFORTUNATELY - as good as this argument is - it fails in the mouth of someone who believes that ALL of their opinions are the unassailable, infallible truth. As one woman I know said, when I asked if if she ever thought she was possibly wrong, her answer - in all earnestness - was "why would I believe something that was wrong?".
My observations however are that - this is common. This is why lefties do not perceive a SPECTRUM of political thought - they think that their views are mainstream - hence, what everyone thinks (as though it works that way) and right-wing is anything else (clearly not grasping why it is called "right" or "left"). This also explains why they so often label ANYTHING extreme as "right-wing" even when it falls clearly into left-wing territory.