What she actually says is that what you should be able to say should be defined by law and not dictated by private companies. So it's more like if the government doesn't like what you say.
Thanks -- I was not able to read the actual article.
I am on the same page as her. In the US we have not had the slightest problem with the government censoring us; that has all befallen us thanks to companies being bullied by social activists, perhaps especially by their own employees.
I mean it's a weird thing to say either which way you look at it. Although the only reason I have a preference for social stigma and private companies dictating "correct thought" is that you don't face heavy fines or go to jail because a private company say's you broke their rules.
Comments
What she actually says is that what you should be able to say should be defined by law and not dictated by private companies. So it's more like if the government doesn't like what you say.
Thanks -- I was not able to read the actual article.
I am on the same page as her. In the US we have not had the slightest problem with the government censoring us; that has all befallen us thanks to companies being bullied by social activists, perhaps especially by their own employees.
I mean it's a weird thing to say either which way you look at it. Although the only reason I have a preference for social stigma and private companies dictating "correct thought" is that you don't face heavy fines or go to jail because a private company say's you broke their rules.