Throwing me out of your property is not censoring me, I can still continue to call you an asshole. -smh-
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Throwing me out of your property is not censoring me, I can still continue to call you an asshole. -smh-
If my property is a newspaper I am printing, and the way you are calling me an asshole is via text on my paper, then I can certainly throw you out.
You are free to publish your own paper calling me an asshole, just like you are free to call me an asshole from the confines of your own property.
@skeptic If you followed your own principles, then I would create offensive articles and demand you publish them in your paper. When you fail to publish them (because your audience doesn't want to read it), then I will accuse you of censorship (your definition).
In my mind neither paper is censoring anyone. Your definition of censorship includes filtering of spam, phishing attempts, and fraudulent or inaccurate information.
Exactly. Just like if I'm the owner of a social media platform like Facebook or Twitter, I get to say what gets published on said platform. It would, in this case, be a service provided by me, and regulated by me.
This sort of "censorship" is not against the free market, at all. In fact, the opposite is true, and the right to do this is at the very core of freedom.
Yes and yes.
If your news paper is your property and you decide to try to censor someone it is your right to do so, your still trying to censor someone and that is morally wrong imo. In return because your newspaper is a business, as word spreads that you censor out of opinion people will realize your newspaper is bias and you would lose people buying it that believe censorship is wrong or just want to have differing opinions so they can make their own opinion on the subject.
I would publish my own paper in this situation and it would strive as the readers of yours that believe censorship is wrong stop buying yours and flock to mine where they can print articles calling you an asshole.
So, you could do it but the moral decision to try to censor someone would be on you and it is wrong. You can say its your right to be morally wrong and I accept that, it still does not make it right.
you say:
If you followed your own principles, then I would create offensive articles and demand you publish them in your paper. When you fail to publish them (because your audience doesn't want to read it), then I will accuse you of censorship (your definition).no one is demanding anything. if you want to publish something in an actual newspaper unless you work for that newspaper you have to pay. If you are willing to pay the cost that anyone else pays to publish content and the news paper said no because they don't agree with you opinion then it is censorship.
When you fail to publish them (because your audience doesn't want to read it), then I will accuse you of censorship (your definition).so a strawman? do you even logic bro?
In my mind neither paper is censoring anyone. Your definition of censorship includes filtering of spam, phishing attempts, and fraudulent or inaccurate information.who made you the all ending and all that matters opinion on what is "spam, phishing attempts, and fraudulent or inaccurate information"?
-fucking swear-@dantheman I have to reply to myself because you jumped into a conversation 5th reply in and there for I cant reply to you.