[reedjosh]

And if a person was prevented from printing an article in a newspaper, wouldn't that just be a veto on a particular means of speech?

Our government isn't supposed to do this stuff. It's evil even if the initial intentions aren't.

[sandworm101]

>> Our government isn't supposed to do this stuff.

Except that "our government" regularly does this. There are all sorts of speech that we censor (copyright violations, violence, porn, hate etc). We don't think of it as wrong that our laws restrict such speech. Other countries have different laws restricting different speech. Certainly some countries have greater restrictions than others, but absolute freedom of speech is not a practical reality anywhere. Real anger should pointed not at twitter but at the countries who implement restrictions with which we disagree.

[reedjosh]

> We don't think of it as wrong that our laws restrict such speech.

I actually do think it's wrong. Culture and more speech is the solution to those issues.

[sreque]

Michael Knowle's book: Speechless, controlling words, controlling minds, covers this topic extremely well. Unbridled free speech has never existed and never will. There will always be standards of speech. The question is always: what are those standards and who is in control of them?

For this particular comment thread, the issue people are discussing is a relatively recent and very dramatic shift in power over speech. Today, a handful of high-tech oligarchs are controlling and enforcing standards of speech with far more efficacy than governments. It gets even scarier when you realize that governments know this and are now pressuring these tech companies to do their bidding.

[AnimalMuppet]

OK, but we censor calls for violence whether they come from the right or from the left. We censor child porn whether it comes from a Democrat or a Republican. There's no bias there (at least, there's not supposed to be). Censoring based on viewpoint is far different from censoring copyright violations.