16 May 2022 6:01 pm
Does your confusion stem from a misunderstanding of censorship as it relates to the Constitution? It applies to the government and the government alone. Even there, there are instances in which the government can curtail speech.Cannonpointer » 16 May 2022, 5:49 pm » wrote: ↑ And you have the right to embrace censorship, fruity.
But the only thing we laugh at is your stupidity.
Beyond that:
- No private entity can be compelled to provide a platform for unfettered speech.
- Nobody is obliged to listen to your bizarre utterances, let alone give them credence.
- A platform that allows ugliness to thrive risks marginalizion by the decent majority.
So go stand on your soapbox and scream inanities into the wind, for all I care. I'll just walk past quickly and avoid eye contact.
https://www.carnegielibrary.org/the-fir ... ensorship/Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. When the government engages in censorship, it goes against the First Amendment rights discussed above. However, there are still examples of government censorship in our history (see the 1873 Comstock Law and the 1996 Communications Decency Act), and the Supreme Court is often called upon to ensure that First Amendment rights are being protected.
Private individuals and groups still often engage in censorship. As long as government entities are not involved, this type of censorship technically presents no First Amendment implications. Many of us are familiar with the censoring of popular music, movies, and art to exclude words or images that are considered “vulgar” or “obscene.” While many of these forms of censorship are technically legal, private groups like the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) work to make sure that the right to free speech is honored.
ETA: quote