4 ms·

Do you think this argument applies to Google Search as well? Because if Google began deciding which blogs, newspapers, etc align with their version of truth, t

• Tainnor 6y ago
  > I think it's easy to hold this opinion when the views silenced are not your own. It's also really easy to be a "free speech" absolutist[1] when you're not personally being persecuted. As others have already mentioned ITT, there is a legal argument to be made that most opinions can be expressed in some form, but there is neither a legal argument to be made that they can be expressed through a particular medium, nor is there a moral argument to be made that every opinion is equally worthy of defense. It's not about the question whether Google censoring LGBT content would be technically illegal, or violate "freedom of speech" - I think neither of these are necessarily true - but it would be morally wrong[2] and thus worthy of outrage. [1] By that I mean people who think that "freedom of speech" means that you should have a right to speak your mind in every context without any repercussions. Freedom of speech is important, but so is protection from persecution, or the trustworthiness of reputable sources etc. [2] The only way in which it wouldn't be morally wrong is if they decided e.g. to ban all political content altogether or something similar.