In earlier times, that meant that no newspaper
  or printing press was required to print 
  everything sent their way. Today it's the 
  centralized websites that also don't have 
  this obligation.

  ...

  You are not entitled to widespread 
  distribution. Never have been.

All else being equal, the history of what was allowed to say (and what was not) in newspapers, radio or television is rife with examples of heavy handed editorializing, gate-keeper-ship, outright bias and favor and misguided attempts to selectively allow what truths are judged to be fit to be heard by the masses.

Those were the dark ages for the dissemination of information.

Do we really want to go back to those ages or even a shade resembling what was considered acceptable practices back then?

Heck, most of that stuff happens unimpeded in large parts of the world today, as I write this.

Do we want tell those countries and regions that its okay to sieve and favor what's allowed and what isn't in their public discourse, if a substantial majority of their populace finds it morally repugnant?

Won't those places and people, then apply their own standards of morality in that judgment, which could be diametrically opposite to ours?

Is this the example we want to set for the world to follow?