Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 6178620" data-attributes="member: 19675">Now THAT is some fine parsing!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Honestly, I think the legal and ethical considerations are pretty closely intertwined- almost inextricably so.In those cases, the person has freely entered a legally binding contract- that means there can be no "censorship" because the party whose speech is limited has freely agreed not to talk and has been financially compensated not to do so.As an attorney, my right to free speech is curtailed by client privacy issues.  It isn't censorship.  I can still talk about my clients most personal information...but I WILL be disbarred and lose my primary livelihood.  Even though I could seek a new license in another state, no other state bar would give a license to someone who intentionally violated a fundamental rule of the position.That is not censorship.  That's the same as the MPAA rating system for movies.  The MPAA has no power to stop you from putting out a movie.  You can even release one unrated.  But if you do, venues for your movie will be hard to find.Rockstar wanted to produce a game with certain content, it got an AO rating.  The big consoles wouldn't publish AO games, but they were free to invest their own money and self-publish.  They were also free to find private backers- I guarantee you that someone like Larry Flynt (himself a staunch defender of free speech and a named respondent in many a 1st Amendment case)- would have been happy to invest in it.And Wal-Mart is under no obligation to sell AO material.  In fact, its consistent with their general policies: they don't sell X-rated videos, for instance.  Rockstar could have sold their game in other outlets besides Wal-Mart- even directly to the public via the Internet had they planned ahead.Again, choosing not to do business with a person or entity with whom you have a disagreement is not censorship.  Neither is limiting your ability to raise funds- that's just business.I respectively disagree.I'm not saying that what youre asserting is impossible, but rather, I see it as 1) less likely and also 2) respect that private organizations- individually or acting in concert- are just as entitled to exrcising free speech and the power of the purse as any individual.</blockquote>

Verification