If I'm being honest, I'm willing to buy that argument. You're right in that censorship of any type is dangerous -- it draws a line in the sand, and once there's

If I'm being honest, I'm willing to buy that argument. You're right in that censorship of any type is dangerous -- it draws a line in the sand, and once there's a line it can always be moved to block viewpoints that the censor disagrees with. But true free speech isn't an option either -- it's well-established that someone falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded room should be held accountable if someone gets injured in the frenzy that follows. The implication there (as I see it) is you can be held accountable for speech that hurts others. So how then do you define "hurting others"? That's where I feel the real debate begins, and those who dislike Reddit/Facebook/others' actions dislike their definition of "hurting others".