The first 2 links cited incontrovertible evidence, I don't see much comedy in that. The third link shows a law that controls speech, which is exactly how I labe

The first 2 links cited incontrovertible evidence, I don't see much comedy in that. The third link shows a law that controls speech, which is exactly how I labeled it in my first sentence. You're arguing with me because I made a comment that stemmed from my own perception of politics. Now that I've clearly explained the reasoning for my comment, you're contorting yourself to prove that my perception is wrong. In the face of empirical evidence you've given nothing more than your opinion. > I can see pretty clearly that Democrats wanting to limit freedom of speech is a rumour that doesn't reflect what Democrats actually want. They want to control speech. I've shown a law, one among many that they've enacted, which proved my point. In response to that you applied some strawman argument about it not being "freedom of speech" when nobody ever said that. I don't think you're arguing in good faith, so I'm going to end this here.