Latest Round of Censorship from the Left

[Norman]

It's very relevant. If Youtube or any of these websites were publicly owned, then banning them from that website would be censorship.

Your definition of publicly owned and the dictionary do not mix.

But since they are private property, they have every right to exclude people as they see fit.

Are publicly traded companies private?
In a public company, the shares are made available to the public. The shares are traded on the open market through a stock exchange. A private company is a stock corporation whose shares of stock are not publicly traded on the open market but are held internally by a few individuals.



You are wrong. It takes character. Do you have have it?

It does not even matter, although of course the far left moron is wrong. Censorship is INDEPENDENT on who conducts said censorship.

Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet enacted by regulators, or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship for moral, religious, or business reasons, to conform to societal norms, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.[1][2]

But no one is preventing Molyneux from publishing his videos. Youtube just said they don't want to do it for him.

That's not censorship.

"No one is preventing Molyneux for exercising his free speech"

"Leftists burn 14 years worth of Philosophy history"

STOP pretending to be FUCKING RETARDED. We get that you are functionally retarded, but even retarded people have no problem understanding this.

Clearly not allowing people to speak on a public platform is against the principle of free speech. If you can't understand that the definition DOES NOT refer to only government, your low IQ stance can not be helped.

Free speech does not mean you get to demand someone publish your content for you.

If Molyneux wants to publish his videos, he should buy a server, get a website and publish them himself. Who is preventing him from doing that?

Free speech means that you don't get banned for stating your opinion on an open platform. That is the LITERAL DEFINITION of free speech. For the billionth time, NO ONE is forced to host their speech without receiving the same payment as other users provide.

You are repeating your incorrect, yet offtopic point. Mods, it is time to take the anti free-speech fanatic out of polluting the discussion.

That's not the definition of free speech.

Definition of FREEDOM OF SPEECH

the legal right to express one's opinions freely… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Legal Definition of freedom of speech

: the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution


Molyneux is free to publish his speech on his own without government restriction. He does not get to demand others do it for him in the name of free speech.

That is the LEGAL definition you fucking moron.

Everyone knows what people mean by free speech in practice. Free speech on a platform means that a far left feminist does not get to ban users whose opinions the fat bitch doesn't like.

MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD.


freedom of speech

noun

1. the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.

Nothing in that definition says that the person has to have the ability to express that opinion anywhere they want.

Molyneux is free to express his opinion, he just can't do it on Youtube anymore.

Nothing that has been stated implies they should be allowed to express opinions anywhere they want. No you are not anti free speech if you don't let them in your house to speak.

However, clearly the definition applies to platforms hosting speech in an open fashion.

Sure it has. The fact that you think it’s a breach of freedom of speech that Molyneux cannot express himself on YouTube. It’s the basis of the thread.

That is NOT NOT NOT the basis of the thread you FUCKING MORON. The point of the thread is that the platform is DEPLATFORMING great pro western civilization, anti-communist people for their opinion. And that is a GREAT WRONG, regardless of any legal aspects.

Fuck, you don't even need to bring ANY references to free speech if it is cognitively too demanding of the LOW IQ MORON. You just REFUSE to understand basic language in your utter cognitive dissonance.

You used censorship in the title.

Sorry your feelings are hurt because not everyone thinks Molyneux’s brand of pseudo-intellectual bullshit is as golden as you do.

But you dragged freedom of speech into this thread. Not me.

Yes I did CORRECTLY.

If you are unable to understand the definition of that word, which contrary to your ignorant misinformation includes censorship by PRIVATE ENTITIES, you can read the above message to get the intended meaning that even a RETARD should be able to follow.

 

[Norman]

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies.

Governments[5] and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship.[6] When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Censorship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[colfax_m]

It's very relevant. If Youtube or any of these websites were publicly owned, then banning them from that website would be censorship.

Your definition of publicly owned and the dictionary do not mix.

But since they are private property, they have every right to exclude people as they see fit.

Are publicly traded companies private?
In a public company, the shares are made available to the public. The shares are traded on the open market through a stock exchange. A private company is a stock corporation whose shares of stock are not publicly traded on the open market but are held internally by a few individuals.



You are wrong. It takes character. Do you have have it?

It does not even matter, although of course the far left moron is wrong. Censorship is INDEPENDENT on who conducts said censorship.

Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet enacted by regulators, or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship for moral, religious, or business reasons, to conform to societal norms, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.[1][2]

But no one is preventing Molyneux from publishing his videos. Youtube just said they don't want to do it for him.

That's not censorship.

"No one is preventing Molyneux for exercising his free speech"

"Leftists burn 14 years worth of Philosophy history"

STOP pretending to be FUCKING RETARDED. We get that you are functionally retarded, but even retarded people have no problem understanding this.

Clearly not allowing people to speak on a public platform is against the principle of free speech. If you can't understand that the definition DOES NOT refer to only government, your low IQ stance can not be helped.

Free speech does not mean you get to demand someone publish your content for you.

If Molyneux wants to publish his videos, he should buy a server, get a website and publish them himself. Who is preventing him from doing that?

Free speech means that you don't get banned for stating your opinion on an open platform. That is the LITERAL DEFINITION of free speech. For the billionth time, NO ONE is forced to host their speech without receiving the same payment as other users provide.

You are repeating your incorrect, yet offtopic point. Mods, it is time to take the anti free-speech fanatic out of polluting the discussion.

That's not the definition of free speech.

Definition of FREEDOM OF SPEECH

the legal right to express one's opinions freely… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Legal Definition of freedom of speech

: the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution


Molyneux is free to publish his speech on his own without government restriction. He does not get to demand others do it for him in the name of free speech.

That is the LEGAL definition you fucking moron.

Everyone knows what people mean by free speech in practice. Free speech on a platform means that a far left feminist does not get to ban users whose opinions the fat bitch doesn't like.

MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD.


freedom of speech

noun

1. the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.

Nothing in that definition says that the person has to have the ability to express that opinion anywhere they want.

Molyneux is free to express his opinion, he just can't do it on Youtube anymore.

Nothing that has been stated implies they should be allowed to express opinions anywhere they want. No you are not anti free speech if you don't let them in your house to speak.

However, clearly the definition applies to platforms hosting speech in an open fashion.

Sure it has. The fact that you think it’s a breach of freedom of speech that Molyneux cannot express himself on YouTube. It’s the basis of the thread.

That is NOT NOT NOT the basis of the thread you FUCKING MORON. The point of the thread is that the platform is DEPLATFORMING great pro western civilization, anti-communist people for their opinion. And that is a GREAT WRONG, regardless of any legal aspects.

Fuck, you don't even need to bring ANY references to free speech if it is cognitively too demanding of the LOW IQ MORON. You just REFUSE to understand basic language in your utter cognitive dissonance.

You used censorship in the title.

Sorry your feelings are hurt because not everyone thinks Molyneux’s brand of pseudo-intellectual bullshit is as golden as you do.

But you dragged freedom of speech into this thread. Not me.

Yes I did CORRECTLY.

If you are unable to understand the definition of that word, which contrary to your ignorant misinformation includes censorship by PRIVATE ENTITIES, you can read the above message to get the intended meaning that even a RETARD should be able to follow.

incorrectly. Refusing to publish something for someone is not censorship.

 

[Norman]

It's very relevant. If Youtube or any of these websites were publicly owned, then banning them from that website would be censorship.

Your definition of publicly owned and the dictionary do not mix.

But since they are private property, they have every right to exclude people as they see fit.

Are publicly traded companies private?
In a public company, the shares are made available to the public. The shares are traded on the open market through a stock exchange. A private company is a stock corporation whose shares of stock are not publicly traded on the open market but are held internally by a few individuals.



You are wrong. It takes character. Do you have have it?

It does not even matter, although of course the far left moron is wrong. Censorship is INDEPENDENT on who conducts said censorship.

Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet enacted by regulators, or on their own initiative. Individuals and organizations may engage in self-censorship for moral, religious, or business reasons, to conform to societal norms, due to intimidation, or out of fear of legal or other consequences.[1][2]

But no one is preventing Molyneux from publishing his videos. Youtube just said they don't want to do it for him.

That's not censorship.

"No one is preventing Molyneux for exercising his free speech"

"Leftists burn 14 years worth of Philosophy history"

STOP pretending to be FUCKING RETARDED. We get that you are functionally retarded, but even retarded people have no problem understanding this.

Clearly not allowing people to speak on a public platform is against the principle of free speech. If you can't understand that the definition DOES NOT refer to only government, your low IQ stance can not be helped.

Free speech does not mean you get to demand someone publish your content for you.

If Molyneux wants to publish his videos, he should buy a server, get a website and publish them himself. Who is preventing him from doing that?

Free speech means that you don't get banned for stating your opinion on an open platform. That is the LITERAL DEFINITION of free speech. For the billionth time, NO ONE is forced to host their speech without receiving the same payment as other users provide.

You are repeating your incorrect, yet offtopic point. Mods, it is time to take the anti free-speech fanatic out of polluting the discussion.

That's not the definition of free speech.

Definition of FREEDOM OF SPEECH

the legal right to express one's opinions freely… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Legal Definition of freedom of speech

: the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution


Molyneux is free to publish his speech on his own without government restriction. He does not get to demand others do it for him in the name of free speech.

That is the LEGAL definition you fucking moron.

Everyone knows what people mean by free speech in practice. Free speech on a platform means that a far left feminist does not get to ban users whose opinions the fat bitch doesn't like.

MAKE YOUR OWN THREAD.


freedom of speech

noun

1. the power or right to express one's opinions without censorship, restraint, or legal penalty.

Nothing in that definition says that the person has to have the ability to express that opinion anywhere they want.

Molyneux is free to express his opinion, he just can't do it on Youtube anymore.

Nothing that has been stated implies they should be allowed to express opinions anywhere they want. No you are not anti free speech if you don't let them in your house to speak.

However, clearly the definition applies to platforms hosting speech in an open fashion.

Sure it has. The fact that you think it’s a breach of freedom of speech that Molyneux cannot express himself on YouTube. It’s the basis of the thread.

That is NOT NOT NOT the basis of the thread you FUCKING MORON. The point of the thread is that the platform is DEPLATFORMING great pro western civilization, anti-communist people for their opinion. And that is a GREAT WRONG, regardless of any legal aspects.

Fuck, you don't even need to bring ANY references to free speech if it is cognitively too demanding of the LOW IQ MORON. You just REFUSE to understand basic language in your utter cognitive dissonance.

You used censorship in the title.

Sorry your feelings are hurt because not everyone thinks Molyneux’s brand of pseudo-intellectual bullshit is as golden as you do.

But you dragged freedom of speech into this thread. Not me.

Yes I did CORRECTLY.

If you are unable to understand the definition of that word, which contrary to your ignorant misinformation includes censorship by PRIVATE ENTITIES, you can read the above message to get the intended meaning that even a RETARD should be able to follow.

incorrectly. Refusing to publish something for someone is not censorship.

Banning someone from your platform because he has the wrong opinion IS CENSORSHIP YOU MORON MORON MORON!

The materials on the channels were already PUBLISHED.

No amount of redefining things to what they are not, will help you here. You are flat out incorrect, and even worse more than retarded.

 

[Norman]

Lawyers comment on one of the acts of censorship. It does not look good.