3 ms·
No it basically is. Nor does it have multiple definitions. The only people who claim it does are those trying to smuggle censorship in while calling it "freed
by textgel 5y ago
No it basically is. Nor does it have multiple definitions. The only people who claim it does are those trying to smuggle censorship in while calling it "freedom of speech".
- jakelazaroff 5y agoSo you think sexual harassment at work, child porn, libel and death threats should be legal? You think platforms should take no action against spam, doxxing or revenge porn? Those are all examples of censorship.
- Causality1 5y agoNot that I disagree with you, but you're improperly combining the censorship actions of private individuals and of governments. Freedom of speech has never limited what actions private platform holders can take against users.
- jakelazaroff 5y agoI agree with that, but rarely do I see the nominally “free speech” crowd on HN make that distinction.
- textgel 5y agoFair points; I'm trigger happy from progressives demanding people be fired for liking a tweet and am unwilling to let them weasel their way into stupid demands but those examples that surround actual legality are fair counters.