No he’s a victim of the state. Your worldview just thinks that’s justified because you don’t believe in free speech.
Discussion
If you interpret my comment as meaning I don’t believe in free speech, then the parameters of your argument are extremely black-and-white.
Free speech is by definition a dialectic between state and the citizenry.
By your logic Hitler was victimised by the state when he was arrested in 1929.
Hitler pulled a violent coup. They aren’t at all similar.
Furthermore free speech isn’t about endorsing every view; it’s about protecting the right to speak without fear of state retaliation.
When you say “free speech is a dialectic,” you’re really just dressing up censorship as nuance.
But there’s nothing nuanced about the state deciding which views are tolerable.
That’s not a dialectic it’s control.