> That's freedom of thought. Don't be absurd, thought can't be policed absent being made public via speech so it must necessarily involve speech to even be an

> That's freedom of thought. Don't be absurd, thought can't be policed absent being made public via speech so it must necessarily involve speech to even be an issue. You're stammering to find a position because your own isn't logically coherent; that's what's happening here. > Reducing freedom of speech to the kind that doesn't have any influence (that would be "speaking to the crowd") is utterly ridiculous. No, it's what's always been intended; no speech is guaranteed to have influence, what an absurd notion to even ponder. Such a thing cannot ever be guaranteed. > I don't care about the legal definition of the term "freedom of speech" Well I don't care about this nonsense freedom you're making up because it imposes on other people's rights and can't be called a right. You do not have a right to other people's services, period. This broader freedom you're proclaiming is actually toxic abuse of private property, it's not freedom. > But then imagine for a second being stripped of all your accounts, including your blog if you have one. We'll see how you don't care. You don't have a right to have accounts on other people's systems. If every business you have an account with bans you, you're the problem, not them.