An equivalent statement would be "I support free speech, just not child pornography". Or "I support free speech, but not violent threats aimed at specific people." Or "I support free speech, just not speech intended to incite a riot."
Not all speech is protected, and pretty much everyone agrees with that principle. "Free speech absolutists" are mostly liars seeking to protect certain types of abusive speech. But hey, maybe you're the exception, and you really do support child porn.
The same way we already do, and always have. The same way we decide whether someone's actions are criminal, or not.Not to deal in absolutes, but how are you going to decide what speech is censored or not?
Who's going to decide? That's the bloody thing.
The courts. That's what they're for. How is this even a question that you're confused about? Why do you people forget that laws always come down to the courts, and wring your hands about "who's gonna decide?" as if that's even an honest concern?
That private company's rules apply only to its own staff and its properties, and only to the extent of firing that staff or removing people from their private property. Given those limitations, of course it's okay for them to establish standards; the alternative would be a gross violation of their freedom of speech, and freedom of association. Sure seems like you don't really understand what "freedom of speech" actually means. About the only justifiable exception here is protected classes; a store can't ban "black people" from the property, for instance.Is it okay if a private company superimposes it's own set of rules on what you can or cannot(or should) say, or rather, we the society agree to a certain set of rules to which all the communal platforms should abide and refer to?

Recent Blue Posts
Recent Forum Posts
Midnight 12.X Patches & World Soul Saga Speculation Thread
Midnight Season 1 World First Race thread
Gaem is tedious for no reason.
MMO-Champion



Reply With Quote



