[bellerocky]

Seems like you're confused here. Freedom of speech is about citizens and their government, not citizens and private entities. Having said that, freedom of speech has never meant that you can say whatever you want, and the courts have supported this. Right now there are people in jail for threatening politicians on Twitter. So yes, freedom of speech is a limited right. It's not a right to encourage people to rape, murder and pillage, is that really so shocking to you?

[tinco]

Free speech is about humans expressing their thoughts, whether they be love or hate. That in many countries free speech is limited to prevent propaganda for 'dangerous' causes like rape, pillaging and terrorism is an evil deemed necessary by most.

So yes, for a true believer in basic human rights it can be shocking that we have restricted ourselves (as voters in democracies) in our right of free speech, and can feel that when trying to aid universal free communications ( by hosting pods).

Note that I myself support the restrictions on free speech as they are although I am keenly aware of the danger and evil of it.

[bellerocky]

> So yes, for a true believer in basic human rights it can be shocking that we have restricted ourselves (as voters in democracies) in our right of free speech, and can feel that when trying to aid universal free communications ( by hosting pods).

The video being "suppressed" is of the gruesome, intimidating murder of James Foley, a journalist who risked his life for a profession dedicated to 1st amendment principles. Being intolerant of intolerance is perfectly ok for me. Maybe not you, because you're kind of extreme and not really thinking through things in my opinion, but ok whatever floats your boat.

[judk]

So perhaps it's best to, at his death, not destroy the principles he lived for.

[bellerocky]

I don't think his principles were to terrify people and intimidate journalists from reporting the news. If people like him weren't risking his life there all you'd have would be official government propaganda.

[logfromblammo]

Freedom of speech has always meant that you can say whatever you please, in the sense that the speech cannot be rightfully prevented. Just because someone cannot gag you does not mean they can't slap you in the face after hearing what you say.

The freedom is about lack of prior restraint. It does not absolve you from the consequences if your words cause another to be harmed.

You can shout "Fire!" in a crowded club, if there is a fire in it. You can even shout "Fire!" in a crowded club if there is a bomb in it, hoping for a more orderly and less panicked evacuation. You can also shout "Fire!" in a crowded club if you like the Ohio Players or P-Funk. But if you make a false alarm and someone gets an injury in the resulting panic--even if it's just fewer sales at the bar because everyone left--you'd better be prepared to accept the consequences. And it isn't enough that your words could have caused harm, there has to be some actual harm and some actual intent to cause mischief.

So if you stand before a crowd and encourage people to run riot and sack the city, the consequences you face are going to be a lot different if that crowd is a rotary club meeting or if it is an unruly mob with pre-sharpened pitchforks. It is absolutely your right to do it, but if you do it with criminal intent, expect to be punished for the damage that you caused.

[aestetix]

>> Right now there are people in jail for threatening politicians on Twitter.

Do you have a source for that? I would be very interested in seeing the details.

[bellerocky]

Yes, http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/obama-twitter-death-thre...

Just google "Secret Service twitter" or follow the @SecretService at https://twitter.com/SecretService They're not shy about this. It's probably illegal to threaten anyone's life or really any kind of violence on Twitter, not just politicians. I doubt threats of violence are protected speech.