Space5000’s Techdirt Profile

space5000

About Space5000




Space5000’s Comments comment rss

  • Jan 11th, 2021 @ 4:20pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think I intended that "legally protected speech" is speech that isn't breaking the law. I was also saying that censorship is not always equal to the first amendment being violated.

    Though granted, sometimes it could be debatable. (e.g. Twitter censoring any lawful political speech in favor of particular side).

  • Jan 11th, 2021 @ 4:14pm

    Re:

    Then why is it called "censorship" whenever there is usual talks about specific regional version of games blocking specific content then? I don't rely on popular opinion a lot, but from a common perspective and how one of the definitions out there for "censorship" does not specifically say anything that limits the definition of censorship to lawful speech violated, I believe it might be a bit fair to ask this question.

  • Jan 9th, 2021 @ 1:42am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I think I was mainly trying to point out that the argument the person made is a bit dangerous, which can be so dangerously broad.

    I'm not trying to say that "censorship" is always bad. Just that to say that "it's not censorship" because "it's possible to say it elsewhere" is a bit ridiculous and basically suggests that censorship probably doesn't even exist.

    Regardless if constitutional rights are violated or not, if I was banned from protesting "Trump is a loser." on the street outside, but not from swinging it around inside my house, then by the one 'logic', I am not being censored just because I can still say it in my house. Yet, I'm restricted from stating it outside and can barely spread the message to other people.

    Going back to the political opinion debate, I do think it can sometimes be morally debatable outside of current law when it comes to censorship in general regarding one-sided political sides in lawful popular media websites.

    Hope I'm being more clear here.

  • Jan 9th, 2021 @ 1:35am

    Re: Re:

    For the first paragraph under quote, that's interesting. It's still a bit hazy for me to tell if this is obviously violating the Twitter's rules but I'm not frustrated if the reasoning was against something very likely to be creating a high risk similar to open crowds during a pandemic.

    For the reaction under the second quote, you're right for the most part (hate speech and maybe a couple of other topics are a bit hazy) on the property thing, other than that, I was mainly trying to say that even if a company can censor a legally protected speech, it would still fit the definition of censorship, which isn't even the same as saying "My rights are violated.". I think there are some video game censorship that are silly and somewhat debatable, but I'm not saying my rights are violated.

  • Jan 9th, 2021 @ 12:39am

    Re: Re: Re:

    lawful political opinion I mean.

  • Jan 9th, 2021 @ 12:38am

    Re: Re:

    When I was stating what censorship was, I was mainly referring to the mere definition of it. A company can legally stop a lot of lawful speech, despite that, it's still censorship if it fits the definition of censorship.

    Perhaps the reason why I was concerned was because of the main debate of banning people for having a political opinion.

  • Jan 9th, 2021 @ 12:34am

    Re:

    =Disclaimer, same person, just recently made an account.=
    I'm not accusing Twitter as violating the first amendment as I think the meaning of censorship is a bit more broad. Though I was using "free speech" a lot if I'm remembering correctly but I don't think I was saying that Twitter banning any lawful speech is a violation of the first amendment.

.

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it