3 ms·
Your argument here is that something which does not legally constitute censorship would be better replaced by something which does.
by throwanem 7y ago
Your argument here is that something which does not legally constitute censorship would be better replaced by something which does.
- doubleunplussed 7y agoThe US constitution does not have a monopoly on the definition of "censorship". Just because government censorship is the only kind it talks about doesn't mean the word doesn't extend to censorship imposed by other entities.