No, you clearly didn't read the links - or you read them as an old Swedish saying goes "as the Devil reads the Bible". That is - not in an objective way, but only with the intention of finding support for your own skewed world view.
As I told you in my very first reply to you - censorship comes in more forms then you pretend it does, and the Wikipedia-links I offered clearly shows that.
You just want to ignore that part of reality since it doesn't fit into your argument that censorship can only ever be something committed by states.
Already the second sentence on the Wikipedia page for censorship reads:
"Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship."
The Wikipedia entry for self-censorship, which I also linked to, states:
"Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees freedom of speech from all forms of censorship. Article 19 explicitly states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.""
Now when Keichwoud in his original post said:
"Could you lay it off? Or at least stop making it so blatantly obvious what your personal views are?"
he's clearly seeking to interfere with Humons right to hold and express her opinion through the media of her choosing - something that is expressedly forbidden in article 19.
So no, you haven't read the links - or you're lying to yourself and other about what they say.
"You have put up ridiculous hysteria as your reasoning."
I guess you think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is pretty hysterical then?
"You don't know me and I don't know you, so this is just speculation about what you think I would do. As it happens, I believe strongly in the freedom of speech-- including the speech saying "I don't like how this comic is going.""
I see that you argue for a standpoint that lacks all moral and legal merit. It's not based on facts - as I have shown - so it must be based on your opinion that Humon's freedom of speech is less important then other people's wish to not have their opinions challenged by Humons work. This is the very opposite of freedom of speech so you obviously don't believe that much in freedom of speech at all.
Or you're an hypocrite that makes up any rational to support your current standpoint instead of basing it on an actual moral or legal ground - there is no other way to interpret your argument here.
And either way it makes it obvious that you would come to a completely different conclusion in another case, where you shared the opinion being expressed by the person in question.
So you see I don't have to know you - as I can draw an informed conclusion about you from your argument here.
And once again - the problem is of course not that Keichwoud had an personal opinion which you keep pretending was the only thing he said. The problem is that he want on from there to try an interfere with Humons right to express her opinion.
"You still have avoided the entire point that Humon owns this board, and as it is her property she can ban him if she doesn't like what he says. That is her right. If she is troubled by what he says, she has the final word on everything that happens on this site. You have no answer for this, so we can move on."
That's not a relevant point in any way.
Keichwoud is still crossing the line from offering his own personal opinion to trying to interfere with Humons right's wherever he did this.
The fact that she could chose to punish him for it doesn't make what he did less wrong.
And the fact that she has chosen not to seems to indicate she's a lot more tolerant then him or you - or me. Or that she just doesn't read the comments - I don't know.
Either way Keichwoud was still out of line and so are you for defending that kind of behavior.
"But hey, no hard feelings: as a courtesy to the losing side, I will let you have the last word. Tell us one more time about how a mild request from an internet poster to move on to different material is identical to government thugs kicking your door in for speaking your mind. Maybe this time it will stick."
It's a sure sign some one doesn't have an convincing argument when they feel the need to tell you they're "winning".
A person who actually knows the strength of their own argument feels no such need.
And no - nothing I say here will ever stick with you, because you don't want to accept any other version then the one you've already decided on.
You want to continue to believe that you "believe strongly in the freedom of speech" - but that you just happen to believe that in this special instance Humons right to it is less important then Keichwoud's wish to not have his opinions challenged, since she expresses opinions you don't share.
You have to ignore all moral and legal pretences to get to that point, and you won't ever let anything I say or show you sink in or stick - because that could lead you to question your own motives here, and you'd never allow that to happen to yourself.
But I'm not talking to you to convince you of anything.
I'm talking to you to show others that you're arguing against moral and legal definitions, that Keichwoud is morally and legally wrong when tries to interfere with Humons right to freedom of speech and you're wrong for defending him.
0
@Trineff
No, you clearly didn't read the links - or you read them as an old Swedish saying goes "as the Devil reads the Bible". That is - not in an objective way, but only with the intention of finding support for your own skewed world view.
As I told you in my very first reply to you - censorship comes in more forms then you pretend it does, and the Wikipedia-links I offered clearly shows that.
You just want to ignore that part of reality since it doesn't fit into your argument that censorship can only ever be something committed by states.
Already the second sentence on the Wikipedia page for censorship reads:
"Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship."
The Wikipedia entry for self-censorship, which I also linked to, states:
"Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees freedom of speech from all forms of censorship. Article 19 explicitly states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.""
Now when Keichwoud in his original post said:
"Could you lay it off? Or at least stop making it so blatantly obvious what your personal views are?"
he's clearly seeking to interfere with Humons right to hold and express her opinion through the media of her choosing - something that is expressedly forbidden in article 19.
So no, you haven't read the links - or you're lying to yourself and other about what they say.
"You have put up ridiculous hysteria as your reasoning."
I guess you think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is pretty hysterical then?
"You don't know me and I don't know you, so this is just speculation about what you think I would do. As it happens, I believe strongly in the freedom of speech-- including the speech saying "I don't like how this comic is going.""
I see that you argue for a standpoint that lacks all moral and legal merit. It's not based on facts - as I have shown - so it must be based on your opinion that Humon's freedom of speech is less important then other people's wish to not have their opinions challenged by Humons work. This is the very opposite of freedom of speech so you obviously don't believe that much in freedom of speech at all.
Or you're an hypocrite that makes up any rational to support your current standpoint instead of basing it on an actual moral or legal ground - there is no other way to interpret your argument here.
And either way it makes it obvious that you would come to a completely different conclusion in another case, where you shared the opinion being expressed by the person in question.
So you see I don't have to know you - as I can draw an informed conclusion about you from your argument here.
And once again - the problem is of course not that Keichwoud had an personal opinion which you keep pretending was the only thing he said. The problem is that he want on from there to try an interfere with Humons right to express her opinion.
"You still have avoided the entire point that Humon owns this board, and as it is her property she can ban him if she doesn't like what he says. That is her right. If she is troubled by what he says, she has the final word on everything that happens on this site. You have no answer for this, so we can move on."
That's not a relevant point in any way.
Keichwoud is still crossing the line from offering his own personal opinion to trying to interfere with Humons right's wherever he did this.
The fact that she could chose to punish him for it doesn't make what he did less wrong.
And the fact that she has chosen not to seems to indicate she's a lot more tolerant then him or you - or me. Or that she just doesn't read the comments - I don't know.
Either way Keichwoud was still out of line and so are you for defending that kind of behavior.
"But hey, no hard feelings: as a courtesy to the losing side, I will let you have the last word. Tell us one more time about how a mild request from an internet poster to move on to different material is identical to government thugs kicking your door in for speaking your mind. Maybe this time it will stick."
It's a sure sign some one doesn't have an convincing argument when they feel the need to tell you they're "winning".
A person who actually knows the strength of their own argument feels no such need.
And no - nothing I say here will ever stick with you, because you don't want to accept any other version then the one you've already decided on.
You want to continue to believe that you "believe strongly in the freedom of speech" - but that you just happen to believe that in this special instance Humons right to it is less important then Keichwoud's wish to not have his opinions challenged, since she expresses opinions you don't share.
You have to ignore all moral and legal pretences to get to that point, and you won't ever let anything I say or show you sink in or stick - because that could lead you to question your own motives here, and you'd never allow that to happen to yourself.
But I'm not talking to you to convince you of anything.
I'm talking to you to show others that you're arguing against moral and legal definitions, that Keichwoud is morally and legally wrong when tries to interfere with Humons right to freedom of speech and you're wrong for defending him.