you seem to have confused censorship with the first amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship excerpt: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient."[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies. Governments[5] and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship.[6] When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child p*rnography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship. much more at the link
Has libertarianism really gone 180 to now being against private business and lack of regulations just because of cancel culture wars? Legitimately fascinated From my understanding, our constitution rights, law system are supposed to cover everything we need covered, so playing libertarian advocate, why would one worry about what a privatized police force, or say prison, or military would do as opposed to a socialist public one?
I would support this law if it was national and applied to everyone -- verbal/ emotional abuse is a serious problem.
So basically anytime someone chooses not to publish something that is censorship? So I can claim censorship that EMI hasn’t give me a record contract even though I have demo tracks? In that definition it says “suppression” a private company deciding to not publish something is hardly suppression. Especially when that material is already out and in circulation and there are no laws against possession. Arguing that copyrights should be done away with for ideological reasons could be considered suppression of property rights. At the minimum that would be more in line with Marxism than what could be considered classically Conservative.
"Marxism" to give every human healthcare - evil "Marxism" to prevent a company from wanting to bleep out the N word in their owned property - freedom.
for you Reason fans https://reason.com/2021/03/19/government-censorship-is-the-worst-cancel-culture-of-all/
