I wasn't trying to say it was - I was simply saying that when you base an argument on free speech, you don't have to explain why free speech is a good thing because it's generally accepted by everyone to be a good thing.

In this case, a lot of people base their argument on a fundamental right to privacy which is not generally accepted by everyone and therefore it has to be explained because it's an important part of the discussion.

Free speech of a webmaster being infringed by not allowing them to repeat information that their users gave them. Easy.

Nope. That is not a free speech issue. It is an irresponsible business issue.

Also, no one who actually does this stuff for a living uses the term "webmaster".

>Also, no one who actually does this stuff for a living uses the term "webmaster".

Have I been hallucinating my workplace this whole time?