3 ms·

You're missing the point. "Censorship" is an abridgement of freedom of speech. Whether it's legal censorship or illegal or even government mandated, it's still

You're missing the point. "Censorship" is an abridgement of freedom of speech. Whether it's legal censorship or illegal or even government mandated, it's still censorship. You're trying to change the meaning of well-defined terms because you're uncomfortable with what the implications of them might be. If you're pro-censorship, just say so, don't try to change what freedom of speech means. There's no one who would advocate complete and total freedom of speech in every arena. Whether it's social, legal or self censorship, the question isn't about whether a line exists, it's where we place it.

whoisjuan 6y ago
Well I already said it. I say that Facebook is within their rights (by your definition) to "censor" this. Personally I don't consider this censorship. What else do you want me to say? You're talking about this like if it was a science where 2+2=4, and that's far from reality. That's why I provided an alternate angle, showing that in other countries Holocaust Denial is a crime. I'm not changing what "freedom of speech means". I'm telling you that freedom of speech doesn't come with extra rights to give you the ability to disperse your thoughts and Facebook is also well within its own freedom of speech rights (as a Corporate personhood) to enforce whatever content rules they want. Either way, I'm not even trying to argue here. You believe this is censorship. Fine. I respect that and really don't see that as an irrational thought at all. There's some sound reasoning around your idea that this is censorship. I just think that trying to create blanket definitions for "censorship" or "freedom of speech" is an easy escape to allow people to behave like shit. That's what I think. Totally a personal opinion, though.