4 ms·

First, there is no Free speech violation here. A private content company is free to change their content. They can create things and they can delete things.

First, there is no Free speech violation here. A private content company is free to change their content. They can create things and they can delete things. Happens all the time. Second, to compare de-publishing a few episodes of this sensationalist blow hard from a streaming service to the horrific tragedy that was Kristallnacht, is wildly inappropriate.

rlt 5y ago
You mean there is no First Amendment violation. Free speech is a general principle that is upheld (or not) by a society as a whole, including businesses and the people who pressure them to censor.
graderjs 5y ago
> First Hiding behind a seemingly literal interpretation (I'm not qualified to judge as I'm no expert in the Constitution). But it's awful to not consider the context, or the consequences of that action. > Second Wildly inappropriate to try to use your own personal reactions to impose your will upon another to restrict their freedom. I don't think you really have a problem using Nazi history analogically as criticism. I think you just don't like that it's criticism directed at something you don't want to see exposed as evil. Because maybe you like the power that you imagine it brings to silence people who say annoying things, rather than to deal with your own emotions. Perhaps you prefer controlling others to controlling yourself? Whatever the motivation, supporting the imposition of one's will on others and restricting their freedoms is terrible. To then abuse the sacred protection afforded by invoking a defense of victims of Nazis, as cover for this behavior, is an abomination.