3 ms·

It's chilling but it's not censorship. You're not prevented from speaking, you just choose not too. Extremely famous people have changed the world through the

It's chilling but it's not censorship. You're not prevented from speaking, you just choose not too. Extremely famous people have changed the world through their speech and died for it. They should not have died but they were also explicitly not censored. You're just arguing over the meaning of words. I agree with you that threats of violence over speech is awful. And thankfully it is against the law, as it should be. But that's also the most extreme -- we're mostly arguing about people who don't feel like they should have to answer for their speech rather than being violently threatened.

stale2002 5y ago
> You're not prevented from speaking, you just choose not too. That a weird definition of censorship. Imagine if someone were to say "You aren't being censored. The government is just threatened to kill you, for your speech, after you say it. You can say whatever you want, and it won't be stopped. You will just suffer consequences (such as when the government kills you), afterwords for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences!" I think that basically everyone would call the situation that I just described, as censorship. The situation of government death squads, killing people for their speech, is probably the most clear example of censorship that I could think of, even if they do it, after the fact. I am not sure what could possibly even qualify as censorship, if the example I gave doesn't count. So I am not sure why you are basically saying that violent threats, that discourage speech, are not an example of censorship.