[gdhbcc]

Probably in much the same way people today cry out about freedom of speech in china, while labeling restrictions on speech at home as acceptable (or not even restrictions at all!)

At the end of the day all of these high minded ideals are just excuses to justify ones own actions and world views.

[altcognito]

Corporations deciding not to carry your message to a large audience and the government sending you to a political gulag do not seem comparable.

[kingkawn]

That seeming difference in methodologies of disenfranchisement is where empires are made and broken

[chillwaves]

Do I have a right to go on CNN primetime and rant?

Does CNN have a right to choose who can use their broadcast platform?

Is freedom of association allowed?

[kingkawn]

You’ve transformed my comment into your favorite straw man.

CNN will not invite you to rant unless you serve a demographic purpose for reaching its audience.

If you associate with the wrong political groups you will be spied on, and your organization will be disrupted intentionally by informants. Yes, in America.

So, as long as you are within the bounds of what the conversation is defined to be you enjoy freedoms, but then what has freedom become if so?

When I said that these distinctions are the determining factors of empires I am saying that these systems function quite similarly, but the distinctions in how they justify themselves are the breathing room where they are successful or fail to convince the population to go along.

[chillwaves]

Which restrictions do you mean? There are very few instances of speech regulated by the government. Mostly threats and incitement of violence.