Point is -> facebook is not Washington Post. It was a platform for
people to communicate among themselves; now censorship is being
increased. Facebook is more compatible to telephone conversations than
to Washington Post. Would you agree to having telephone conversations
censored? And as for your rights -> you don't have the right to censor
other people's freedom of speech; if were able to censor other people
then they wouldn't have freedom of speech.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Jed Rothwell" <jedrothw...@gmail.com>
To: "Vortex" <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 14:46
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without
YouTube ads
ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com
<mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:
It is not their constitutional right to censor.
It most certainly is their right! Facebook or the Washington Post cannot
be forced to publish an editorial they disagree with. They can censor
any opinion or letter they want. If the government were to force them to
publish something they disagree with, that would be as bad as forbidding
them from publishing an opinion. If the DoE were to force me to upload
an editorial attacking cold fusion, that would be as unconstitutional as
forcing me to delete these editorials opposing the DoE:
https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455
<https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455>
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf
<https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf>
Facebook and YouTube have the same rights as I do. They are bigger, and
they have more impact, but that does not mean their rights are reduced.
