[motorest]

> I think the question we should be focusing on is why this is possible in the first place?

No, that's specious reasoning. OP points out the possibility this is not even real. Do you have any indication that any of this is true? That should be your first step. However, you're somehow arguing that hypotheticals serve as any kind of justification, and a potentially made-up scenario is worth anything.

[alansammarone]

I think what he meant is that whether or not, in that particular instance, it happens to be the case that the company does not feel sufficiently motivated to actually do this (maybe his singing wasn't offensive enough, or the company just happens to have enough reasonable people in their staff right now), the much bigger issue is that they could theoretically do this. Which I think is a very important point.

It should be provably, technically impossible to do this - or at the very least, there should be heavy penalties (say, 10-20% of annual revenue) for doing this without proper judicial ruling. A company should only be able to afford 1 or 2 errors like this.

Are you free just because your master happens to like you and let you do what you want? Obviously not, since he could change his mind at any time.

[throwaway290]

No, the point is that capability is there. Don't matter if it happened or not. Matters that it can happen.

Have you seen photos of those "do you have criminal thoughts?" posters on London streets. That is art to highlight an issue.

To be fair Such art would not be rapper style)