Why the double standard? Why is one bad and one good, why is not always bad.
Because, simply put, they are apples and oranges. The government has police, armies, and jails. All a private concern can do is have you not speak in one particular place or venue (virtual or real-space). The government can shut you up completely and permanently.
Whether it is the guberment that prevents me from saying Putin is naughty or Facebook, it makes no difference.
Says a man who probably doesn't know anyone who has spent time in a gulag.
Which sounds melodrmatic, but is demonstrative of what the Right is supposed to prevent.
If Facebook prevents you for saying Putin is naughty, you can go whine about him on G+, or one of a hundred other social sites. If, for historical example, the Soviet government prevented you from saying something like it, you may not have ever been heard from again. This is a perspective that is often lost on modern Americans, who have had so little restriction on their speech for so long.
Nope. Speech is speech. Private venue is private venue. Unless you want to start splitting hairs over what is allowed where - and I think you'll find that a tangle that won't serve your argument at all, because the lines between private home and private place of business are thin indeed, as are the lines between personal abuse and other forms of speech.
Also, it appears you guys are getting too emotionally invested in a simple discussion, so it would probably be best to just closed the thread down. If you can't handle the topic, you shouldn't be participating in it.
Quick slide to the
ad hominem, hm? We say things because we are emotional, so we can be dismissed? I'm afraid that's an obvious and transparent ploy to avoid actually addressing the point. Weak sauce, rhetorically speaking. Got anything better?