[stcredzero]

> Many of them are illegal.

No they aren't. Point me to a law stating that any of those are illegal besides the "revenge porn" example that I outlined.

That's dishonest quoting. The last quote should include my assertion that many of those would be evidence of illegal activity.

If I post the source code of your personal project online

If that was done without permission, if that information was obtained illegally, then that would be illegal. This would indeed be the case with my personal project under its current copyright, licensing terms, and repository disposition. That such a circumstance could be illegal is part of the intended shock value of your extreme example. If you didn't intend such an illegal scenario, it's still reprehensible and extreme. (see below)

If I post the contents of your diary online

Again, if that was done without permission, if that information was obtained illegally, then that would be illegal. Again, if you didn't intend such an illegal scenario, it's still reprehensible and extreme. (see below)

If I post the contents of a heated argument between you and your spouse online

If the contents were recorded from a private conversation in a home here in California, that information was obtained illegally, then that would be illegal. Again, if you didn't intend such an illegal scenario, it's still reprehensible and extreme. (see below)

The following two aren't illegal, but they're just morally reprehensible in a way which even transcends ideology. As such, the following examples are certainly "extreme."

Doxxing: If I post your address online next to a photo of your house

If I post a photoshopped picture of your kid online

But in any case, your position isn't defensible, because you're dishonestly or mistakenly conflating censorship and the principle of Free Speech. They are not equivalent. Again, the issue is the subset of censorship which interferes with Free Speech.

To be fair, there could be scenarios crafted for all of your examples of concerning activity which would make them Free Speech. If the information had a purpose to further the transparency of organizations, public figures, or shed light on legal matters, those would be covered by Free Speech. On the other hand, if the purpose is purely to hurt or humiliate someone for views, then this is reprehensible, and it doesn't fit the purpose of Free Speech.

[root_axis]

> That's dishonest quoting. The last quote should include my assertion that many of those would be evidence of illegal activity.

It's not dishonest, it's literally your exact quote, copy and pasted in whole, verbatim. Your "evidence of illegal activity comment" is written later in the post, and I didn't respond to it because it's completely irrelevant. You stated those things are illegal. I explained that they're not and asked you to point to some evidence that they are. The fact that you are now saying they're "evidence of illegal activity" is just you moving the goalpoasts.

Anything can be considered "evidence of illegal activity" IF it implicates one in a crime. Using your reasoning, a bloody knife is illegal because it's "evidence of illegal activity". Well... no, it could just as easily be evidence that I cut myself making dinner, so there is no reason for you to bring that up except to shoehorn my examples into the category of illegal activity even though they aren't actually illegal.

> if that was done without permission... if that information was obtained illegally... If the contents were recorded from a private conversation in a home here in California...

So only IF you qualify everything I wrote with examples I didn't use which are actually illegal. You've got some balls to lecture others on dishonest argumentation when you can't even honestly tackle the argument as I wrote it. Unless you decide to post some links to laws showing that those examples are illegal, I am just going to move on from this part of the discussion because you're objectively wrong here. They're NOT illegal.

> The following two aren't illegal, but they're just morally reprehensible in a way which even transcends ideology

So are you suggesting that things you deem as morally reprehensible should be exempt from your "principle of Free Speech?"

You also did not answer my question about whether or not it is "ethically wrong" to delete comments from your personal blog.

[stcredzero]

Using your reasoning, a bloody knife is illegal because it's "evidence of illegal activity".

...You've got some balls to lecture others on dishonest argumentation when you can't even honestly tackle the argument as I wrote it.

One can cite or represent a bloody knife for shock value. In such cases, the implication is often clear. I suspect you're either misleading with the shocking implication, thereby having it both ways.

Perhaps I misread your intention. However, your scenarios don't really make sense if one applies the "not a big deal" interpretations. Sure, there are situations where it's not a big deal to post a diary entry. In that case, why would anyone care and why would there be any censorship which would be considered "good?" It doesn't make sense.

So are you suggesting that things you deem as morally reprehensible should be exempt from your "principle of Free Speech?"

There is indeed a problem with speech devoid of principle, meant only to hurt someone. This is understood by the law. The purpose of Free Speech is to let people express grievances or objects with regards to principles. Morally reprehensible speech should be allowed, but it's not the purpose of Free Speech. Some subset of morally reprehensible speech would even be illegal, and therefore it wouldn't be protected as Free Speech.

Again, it's you who brought up the nebulous extreme examples in the first place, with the purpose of having it both ways to justify censorship.

[root_axis]

> One can cite or represent a bloody knife for shock value. In such cases, the implication is often clear. I suspect you're either misleading with the shocking implication, thereby having it both ways.

I am not making any implications. My point here is very clear: your statement that the scenarios I described are illegal is false. It's as simple as that. Either way, it doesn't matter to the point I'm making.

> your scenarios don't really make sense if one applies the "not a big deal" interpretations

Whether you regard the scenarios as "extreme" is a subjective characterization that has no impact on the argument. I am arguing that censorship isn't inherently bad or wrong. I don't agree that the examples are extreme or illegal, but even if they are, they are still examples of content that could inadvertently end up on the internet; the point is the same no matter how it got there.

Even if someone broke into the house of a politician, assaulted them at gunpoint, and then stole sensitive political documents before posting them on the internet, the argument is the same. The voluntary censorship of those materials by platform owners would not necessarily be bad or wrong. In that extreme and illegal example, platforms might have a legal obligation to censor the materials as well, but that doesn't change whether or not doing so is bad or wrong.

> There is indeed a problem with speech devoid of principle, meant only to hurt someone. This is understood by the law. The purpose of Free Speech is to let people express grievances or objects with regards to principles. Morally reprehensible speech should be allowed, but it's not the purpose of Free Speech. Some subset of morally reprehensible speech would even be illegal, and therefore it wouldn't be protected as Free Speech.

Descriptions like "devoid of principle and meant only to hurt someone" is a subjective determination the likes of which sit at the heart of every free speech debate. As you already stated, in the context of "what is understood by the law" the point is moot since "illegal speech" is not "free speech" by definition unless you're arguing that the law is wrong or misapplied. Either way, speech that is "devoid of principle and meant only to hurt someone" is also legally protected speech in most cases.

> Again, it's you who brought up the nebulous extreme examples in the first place, with the purpose of having it both ways to justify censorship.

I did not "justify censorship", I refuted the statement "censorship is always bad". To characterize that as justifying censorship is dishonest.

[CompanionCuuube]

> Your "evidence of illegal activity comment" is written later in the post, and I didn't respond to it because it's completely irrelevant.

You forgot about the guidelines: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.

You did that by ignoring the context of the post.

[root_axis]

Do you have anything to add to the discussion regarding the topic at hand? I explained the problem with their reasoning in the post you're replying to.

> Anything can be considered "evidence of illegal activity" IF it implicates one in a crime. Using your reasoning, a bloody knife is illegal because it's "evidence of illegal activity". Well... no, it could just as easily be evidence that I cut myself making dinner, so there is no reason for you to bring that up except to shoehorn my examples into the category of illegal activity even though they aren't actually illegal.

[CompanionCuuube]

The problem with your explanation is that it reverses the probability of an action being illegal if the context of it is not provided.

More people are accidentally injured with knives than they are used to commit assault, but in the examples the probabilities are flipped.

You could say that under that reasoning, running over an old nun in the street is illegal because it's "evidence of illegal activity", Well... no, it could just as easily be evidence that you were stopping a mass shooting by a psychopathic old lady.