[spathi_fwiffo]

>> Morally, though

>The only ones that hold these sorts of views are the ones with nothing interesting to say.

I'm confused by your response; what is it you are trying to say?

They were making a legal description of why the 1st amendment doesn't prevent a private entity from censoring; not a moral one.

From a legal perspective, they are right. The constitution prevents the government (and only the government) from restricting speech.

If this guy was going to jail or being fined by the US Government because he said FreeHK, then that would be a rights violation.

He isn't going to jail; so, now it is up to the terms of his contract with Blizzard/EA as to whether there is a Civil or Criminal legal violation (and any applicable labor laws in whatever jurisdiction can be applied); and even if there is a legal violation, that would be a contract law issue and not a rights law issue (or a local labor law issue).

[celticmusic]

The biggest clue that you're involved in a strawman is your quoting a part of the other poster that I didn't quote and applying it to my response.

[spathi_fwiffo]

Fine, I'll be more specific about my problem with your statement:

To me, it sounded like you were judging the previous poster as if he was making a moral defense of Blizzard/EAs actions.

While skipping the section of his email where he alluded to their actions being immoral -- thus doing the same thing to them that you are claiming I did to you.

[celticmusic]

The comment I quoted mirrors a very common sentiment a segment of the population uses to defend their shitty behavior, and I was pointing out that this sentiment only truly makes sense to those who have nothing inoffensive to say.

Whether that applies to the poster in question or not, I couldn't tell you.

[spathi_fwiffo]

thanks. that's the kind of clarification i was requesting.