As I said, I don't necessary agree with the Facebook thing. I can see why people complain about their behavior, which is fine. I was saying that I think the subject is irrelevant to the discussion.

I suppose I interpret the title "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights" as meaning beyond government oppression. I believe in the idea of natural human rights and government exists because we allow it.

Regardless, I interpret government inaction on non-state actors that actively suppress by illegal activities a person's rights to free expression (or speech, whichever makes people happy) as a form of government oppression.

EDIT: thanks for the discussion, you've given me much to consider.

> Regardless, I interpret government inaction on non-state actors that actively suppress by illegal activities a person's rights to free expression (or speech, whichever makes people happy) as a form of government oppression.

The above sentence is essentially lacking entirely of meaning. As your right of speech/expression can only be invoked when suppressed by a state entity, I assert that a non-state actor cannot possibly violate said right.

Please give me one example of a non-state entity violating your right to not have your speech oppressed by the state?

Please explain in another way how it lacks entirely of meaning, because your current explanation is essentially lacking entirely of meaning.

How does my right to free expression require a state entity? That implies that right is provided for by the state entity. That's not how it works.

Here's an example of how a non-state entity can violate your right to free expression with the state's approval; you start to say something I don't like, I punch you in the face to shut you up. You try again and I punch you again. Now imagine a police officer standing right next to me watching me do it.