Latest Round of Censorship from the Left

[Shelzin]

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

Here's the definition of publicly owned:

publicly-owned

a publicly-owned company or business is owned by the government:

dictionary.cambridge.org

a publicly-owned company or business is owned by the government

So I think the dictionary does agree with me. Quite nicely in fact.

A Privately owned company isn't traded on the open market.

What Is Privately Owned?
A privately-owned company is a company that is not publicly traded. This means that the company either does not have a share structure through which it raises capital or that shares of the company are being held and traded without using an exchange. Privately-owned companies include family-owned businesses, sole proprietorships, and the vast majority of small and medium-sized companies.

Unlike a public company, a privately-owned company does not have to answer to public investors.

So you are saying you don't have any character? Ok then.

 

[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?

 

[colfax_m]

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

Here's the definition of publicly owned:

publicly-owned

a publicly-owned company or business is owned by the government:

dictionary.cambridge.org

a publicly-owned company or business is owned by the government

So I think the dictionary does agree with me. Quite nicely in fact.

A Privately owned company isn't traded on the open market.

What Is Privately Owned?
A privately-owned company is a company that is not publicly traded. This means that the company either does not have a share structure through which it raises capital or that shares of the company are being held and traded without using an exchange. Privately-owned companies include family-owned businesses, sole proprietorships, and the vast majority of small and medium-sized companies.

Unlike a public company, a privately-owned company does not have to answer to public investors.

So you are saying you don't have any character? Ok then.

Your link showed the definition of publicly traded. Not publicly owned. Did you not notice that?

 

[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.

 

[Shelzin]

Your link showed the definition of publicly traded. Not publicly owned. Did you not notice that?

A publicly traded company cannot by definition, be Privately owned. Yes... I noticed that. If you find somewhere that says otherwise, I'll eat crow. Unlike what you seem to be doing, I WILL eat crow and admit I'm wrong. I'll even thank you for it.

 

[Norman]

Your link showed the definition of publicly traded. Not publicly owned. Did you not notice that?

A publicly traded company cannot by definition, be Privately owned. Yes... I noticed that. If you find somewhere that says otherwise, I'll eat crow. Unlike what you seem to be doing, I WILL eat crow and admit I'm wrong. I'll even thank you for it.

He is confusing the terms publicly owned and government ran, just like he is confusing the terms free speech and censorship.

There are bunch of people who are massively anti-American and against free speech, yet have nothing to do with the government. His mind fries trying to contemplate this fact.

 

[Meister]

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

Here's the definition of publicly owned:

publicly-owned

a publicly-owned company or business is owned by the government:

dictionary.cambridge.org

a publicly-owned company or business is owned by the government

So I think the dictionary does agree with me. Quite nicely in fact.

Could you give examples of a publicly owned company? That might clear up the confusion. I'll wait.

 

[colfax_m]

Your link showed the definition of publicly traded. Not publicly owned. Did you not notice that?

A publicly traded company cannot by definition, be Privately owned. Yes... I noticed that. If you find somewhere that says otherwise, I'll eat crow. Unlike what you seem to be doing, I WILL eat crow and admit I'm wrong. I'll even thank you for it.

Show me where publicly owned means anything other than what I stated.

A publicly traded company is still owned by private individuals since it is not owned by the government.

 

[colfax_m]

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

Here's the definition of publicly owned:

publicly-owned

a publicly-owned company or business is owned by the government:

dictionary.cambridge.org

a publicly-owned company or business is owned by the government

So I think the dictionary does agree with me. Quite nicely in fact.

Could you give examples of a publicly owned company? That might clear up the confusion. I'll wait.

In this country, not many examples, but utilities tend to be obvious examples.

The point here is that a publicly owned property has different rules for censorship than others. A public square could not remove people based on the content of their speech, whereas a private area could.

 

[WEATHER53]

When truth and facts get in the way of feelings and wishes then facts must be eliminated from view
Lib 101 and Hitler 101

 

[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.

 

[WEATHER53]

Private does not mean permitted to be illegal.

 

[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.
   

 

[Shelzin]

A publicly traded company is still owned by private individuals since it is not owned by the government.

Not what you said.

And your answer is ridiculous. That fact that it's publicly traded does not change the fact that it's privately owned by private individuals.

It's not a privately owned company. It cannot be a publicly traded company that is privately owned.

You are wrong. DO you have character or not?

 

[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.

 

[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.

It has been now explained to you dozens of times, it is clear you are refusing to get it because you have cognitive dissonance as a far leftist. I want you gone from my thread, the forum rules apply here. Did you read the one about off-topic?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Norman]

Mods please ban Colfax from the thread, I would like to get to discussing the actual topic. It can not be done as long as he is trolling and polluting the thread with other subjects. Damn, how hard is it to make your own thread...

 

[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.