I just don't support mocking dead children at their graveside

Yes, I get it. That's your emotional appeal of a motte in the typical motte and bailey "argument". You know you have no leg to stand on by calling it censorship, so you go for an emotional plea instead.

I also don't support a massive industry like Boeing getting off with a paltry fine.

Nobody has ever contested you on this. Continuing to bring it up makes it seem like you're virtue signalling at this stage. Though I guess that's just par for the course for you.

This was my original stance and it still is.

That was your original statement, and still is. Your stance on the matter is that censorship is fine when you get to apply it to topics you find objectionable.

If you feel that compelled speech, self-censorship and outlandish claims without evidence are somehow better or worse than the innocent murder of people in a plane rather than by a gun that's up to you.

What in the fuck are you even talking about? Do you seriously believe that I think Boeing shouldn't be fucking punished for their actions all because I believe Jones shouldn't have been punished for his speech? Are you that fucking delusional, or are you just that entrenched in a spat that you refuse to even try to understand another person?

Nobody was advocating for compelled speech. Nobody was advocating for self-censorship. And I'm still unsure how outlandish claims matter, unless you're referring to Jones and then I have to question how you think this will be enforced through anything less than some kind of Fact Checker™ that deems what is and isn't acceptable to discuss. Is that what you want? You want a Ministry of Truth? Because it seems like you want a Ministry of Truth. And you can call it any other name you want, but it will still be the same thing in function.

I just get to be consistent with my stance despite the going-ons over last weekend whereas you have to consider what free speech leads to in certain individuals and the responsibility which goes with the associated freedoms therein.

I have been consistent, and I haven't had to reconsider anything. You're being awfully presumptuous to assume I'm not steadfast in my beliefs. It's funny though, because you can't even admit that you're in support of censorship. You're so proud of your supposed consistency, but you refuse the label. Maybe it's because like all snakes, you hate it when people identify you for what you are.

EDIT

lol, he blocked me because he got called on his pro censorship stance.

I just don't support mocking dead children at their graveside

Yes, I get it. That's your emotional appeal of a motte in the typical motte and bailey "argument". You know you have no leg to stand on by calling it censorship, so you go for an emotional plea instead.

I also don't support a massive industry like Boeing getting off with a paltry fine.

Nobody has ever contested you on this. Continuing to bring it up makes it seem like you're virtue signalling at this stage. Though I guess that's just par for the course for you.

This was my original stance and it still is.

That was your original statement, and still is. Your stance on the matter is that censorship is fine when you get to apply it to topics you find objectionable.

If you feel that compelled speech, self-censorship and outlandish claims without evidence are somehow better or worse than the innocent murder of people in a plane rather than by a gun that's up to you.

What in the fuck are you even talking about? Do you seriously believe that I think Boeing shouldn't be fucking punished for their actions all because I believe Jones shouldn't have been punished for his speech? Are you that fucking delusional, or are you just that entrenched in a spat that you refuse to even try to understand another person?

Nobody was advocating for compelled speech. Nobody was advocating for self-censorship. And I'm still unsure how outlandish claims matter, unless you're referring to Jones and then I have to question how you think this will be enforced through anything less than some kind of Fact Checker™ that deems what is and isn't acceptable to discuss. Is that what you want? You want a Ministry of Truth? Because it seems like you want a Ministry of Truth. And you can call it any other name you want, but it will still be the same thing in function.

I just get to be consistent with my stance despite the going-ons over last weekend whereas you have to consider what free speech leads to in certain individuals and the responsibility which goes with the associated freedoms therein.

I have been consistent, and I haven't had to reconsider anything. You're being awfully presumptuous to assume I'm not steadfast in my beliefs. It's funny though, because you can't even admit that you're in support of censorship. You're so proud of your supposed consistency, but you refuse the label. Maybe it's because like all snakes, you hate it when people identify you for what you are.