I think there's quite a difference between being exposed to unpleasantness, and someone deliberately taking the unpleasantness, handing it over to a publisher a

I think there's quite a difference between being exposed to unpleasantness, and someone deliberately taking the unpleasantness, handing it over to a publisher and telling them to rub it into your face. This whole discussion seems to revolve around whether a publishing platform should be forced to tolerate any type of content, or not. I think you'll agree there's a line somewhere there. From seemingly easy, to more tricky, where do you draw the line (or maybe you just cultivate some fortitude)? * Twitter bans Trumpetists * AWS bans Parlor * You have a personal blog where people can comment (without you pre-approving the content). You choose ban someone's comments. * You have a personal blog to which people can post comments but they only show after your preview. You choose to specifically ignore someone's comments. * Mosquito Liberation Front decides to use your yard's lawn for a signpost advertising rights for mosquitoes. You take the sign down. * MLF decides to use your house's white painted walls as a medium for their freedom of speech and spraypaints their logos on it. (bonus: MLF chooses to use the white painted walls of Twitter HQ as a medium for their freedom of speech, next to a screen that shows live tweets, after they've been banned from twitter)