[systemvoltage]

Why does this matter? Regardless of the party, my original message stands. It is an irrelevant detail. Not sure what's causing defensiveness everytime I bring up or criticize progressives. My bad I only remembered Diane Feinstein's name from the book, jeez.

[dahart]

Oh I thought you were suggesting we should stop censoring legal but offensive behavior? The issue of exactly who’s doing the censoring seems absolutely and completely relevant to the subject of censorship, no? If it’s irrelevant, then I don’t understand the point of your top comment. Why do we need to allow offensive wackos to do their thing, what offensive things are we talking about, and who needs to allow them?

Perhaps a more important discussion, if you do care about censorship, is to define more thoughtfully what you mean about “within the limits of the law”. In the US, the law, up to and including the constitution, makes clear that offensive behavior is anywhere from not protected free speech up to criminal activity. Politicians are debating what the limits of the law should be, and sometimes they blow hot air, and sometimes they write bills. Either way, the results of Congressional bills are establishing the limits of the law, and so define the acceptable legal bounds of offensive media & speech. Here’s one of the bi-partisan congressional sessions on games (it included Feinstein, among many others, but she didn’t testify). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-109shrg28337/html/C...

[UncleMeat]

You made an explicit point of highlighting this "irrelevant detail" in multiple posts.

[systemvoltage]

In response to people jumping on to defending progressives of the 90's. The amount of defensiveness that's invoked here on HN for stating the facts is quite alarming.

I really should have left out the Diane Feinstein and "California nutjobs" in the original post. This is what happens when you mistakenly poke HN every single time when it comes to political one-sidedness.

The fault is mine.