1. I didn't name-call at any point? 2. You're pedantically missing the forest for the trees. I understand and agree with what you're saying up to your last 2

1. I didn't name-call at any point? 2. You're pedantically missing the forest for the trees. I understand and agree with what you're saying up to your last 2 sentences. The reason I said you're missing my point is because you are. My point is not that laws are the end-all-be-all of morality and don't question just follow. My point is that, while you can believe whatever the hell you want ethically (and, because I'm pretty morally relative almost to the extreme, I'd probably support you abstractly, even if you're not morally relative and rather hold some things absolutely,) I still believe that our western society plays an important superseding role in determining what behaviors should be allowed and the punishments if you misbehave. I accept that we govern each other, that we've figured out a system that isn't "don't insult the king" and that works for the majority of people. So, abstractly: argue about whatever you want. Express yourself freely. Challenge the status quo. Bad laws are bad, let's change them. Civil disobedience! Etc. But, in this case: it's not abstract, there are facts, a justice process, and outcome to consider so it's silly to apply abstract reasoning to it. <-- That is my sole point. We can descend from our ivory tower and discuss the dirty details of because they exist. And that's what this topic is about. OP is not an abstract piece on whether it's ethical or desirable or not to not police content on your platform. I'm pretty sure we'd fall on the same side in that debate. I, basically, don't understand why people are ignoring the facts to push some whacko narrative about how DPR is a libertarian saint who was "just running a platform" and got unfairly boned by the legal system, corrupt cops, a maleficent judge, and unwitting gullible jurors. It's crazy to the point where I'll call it illogical because I don't see any rhetorical way to just ignore the facts in pursuit of a content neutral platform agenda (which I happen to agree with, btw). Defending DPR in face of the facts and outcome hurts that agenda.