"examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it."

that the definition I am using. What does it have to do with freedom of speech?

Well, did GoDaddy and CloudFlare suppress the Daily Stormer? Or did they choose not to do business with them? I don't believe that they engaged in censorship, because they didn't prevent the Daily Stormer from being accessible. I believe that choosing not to do business with them was a form of speech, and that acting in the way they did was them expressing free speech. Thus, to me, in order to believe that what they did was censorship, that means that they should not be able to take that course of action, and that those companies were obligated to assist the Daily Stormer in getting its message out there.

>Well, did GoDaddy and CloudFlare suppress the Daily Stormer?

Yes they surpassed it on their platform. Censorship doesn't mean "make inaccessible to everyone on any platform". If you censor something on your own platform its still called censorship. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Indian govt censors kissing on movie screens but you can still go watch it on youtube. That doesn't mean what they are doing is not censorship, the govt entity that's responsible for it is actually called "censor board".

GoDaddy and CloudFlare are not government. The Indian Government is. That's a large difference.

And I still don't believe what they did was censorship. That was them exercising their right to free speech. I do not believe that it is possible for an expression of free speech to be censorship.

>GoDaddy and CloudFlare are not government. The Indian Government is. That's a large difference.

I was just using that as an example. So according to you only govt can do censorship?

Thats a definition you made up, not the definition in dictionary. I quoted the dictionary definition from the dictionary and it perfectly matches what google did. Can you tell me how am wrong precisely?

I believe that only those who are obligated to assist or allow speech can do censorship. I don't believe that someone who has no obligation to aid or allow speech can. For example, if I throw away a flyer, that's not censorship.

u refuse to answer the question. "how did what google did not fit the definition of censorship in a dictionary" .

Definitions don't depend on one particular person's beliefs .

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying here. Censorship is only when your view and others are not allowed freedom of speech?

I feel like I'm not parsing your sentence correctly.

I'm saying it's only censorship if you don't believe that other groups also have freedom of speech and association too. In order for the domain name thing or the CloudFlare thing to be censorship, you have to believe that none of those entities are able to practice freedom of association, or the right to choose who they do business with.

I disagree. I think doing business should be based on business reasons; if Daily Stormer upholds their end of the contract, then Google/GoDaddy/etc. have no ethical business reason to terminate it. If they disagree with what Daily Stormer says, they are totally free to publish their own statement. The only ethical consequence of free speech could be another speech.

And I believe that choosing not to do business is a form of speech.

Also, doing business with Nazis (and I'm not throwing that term around lightly; the Daily Stormer identifies themselves as such) is, especially given recent events, considered bad for business. So I would say they have a business reason there too.

There indeed is such a reason, but it's unethical. It is basically being afraid that the mob will turn against you and thus hurt your business. Somehow nobody blames the mob.

Doing business is a way of living in the modern society. Stopping doing business (including firing an employee over non-business reasons, a very popular measure in liberal circles) threatens your well-being and even life. If everyone stops doing business with a person, the person is very likely to die. This is very close to lynching and is a total opposite of justice.

I completely disagree. I especially disagree that it's anywhere close to lynching, which is a terrible, terrible analogy for you to choose given that the subject at hand is Nazis and White Supremacists.

I disagree that choosing not to do business with the Daily Stormer is unethical. It's no worse than any other reason to not choose to do business with someone, of which GoDaddy does chose not to do business with several other entities.

I disagree that GoDaddy not doing business with the Daily Stormer threatened anyone's well being or life. If anything, not amplifying their signal has likely saved lives, because hopefully fewer people will know that the site exists, and will then become radicalized because of it.

Have you read that piece?

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-t...

It's about a woman with that tweet about white and AIDS and how the mob response to it ruined her life. The punishment turned out to be completely out of proportion with the crime. Punishments carried out by mobs tend to. Imagine that she were tried by a court for her tweet, given a defender and all the due process; do you think the court would order her to be punished to that extent? So yes, this is very close to lynching; it's social lynching done by well-educated progressive people who think they're humane and are doing the right thing. Projected to its logical conclusion it's meant to deprive the victims of their lives.

Actually, much more people became aware of Daily Stormer; I, for one, I've never heard of them before. I wish I could see what it was about, I prefer to trust my own judgement in such matters, but I cannot. All I can see is a small excerpt in a search engine: "We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the people, ..." Well, that's all; the information is not available. But it's ironic, isn't it? I'd say this credo is an opposite of that of their antifa opponents who claim it's good to use violence against Nazis and boldly declare that at the pages of New Your Times and whatnot.