You can definitely not say anything you want in NK. You get censored at multiple stages.

Censoring is everywhere, even in free countries. The only difference is the degree of censoring, and the topics.

This specific case seems to be about defamation and (I suppose) the right of the plaintiff to know the identity of the person who supposedly accused(?) them of something?

I'm not sure what does this have to do with freedom of speech. It seems to be right to anonymity or something like that, which I don't think is guaranteed in most places?

There's a big range of possibilities between censored speech in dictatorships and a free speech absolutely not constrained by other human rights. In a normal democratic society speech is constrained just like every other right. It is strange to think otherwise.

No, it's more like in woke left. You can say whatever you like, but you say something they don't approve of, you'll be cancelled. They have even Code of Conduct to remind you of that.

Oh, wait.

Perhaps, I'm not sure what does this have to do with the article, though.

>No, it's more like in woke left.

Could you explain what "woke left" is? I understand 'left', i guess, but reading the rest of your comment i see that 'cancelling' [I'm guessing again - censoring?] is what 'the right' do too.

Certainly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woke

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture

Cancelling is distinct from censorship, because it's post-factum "consequences" (i.e. character assassination). "Censorship" is usually understood as measures that prevent publication in the fist place, before the actual speech happens.

> There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech

Attributed to Idi Amin

I'm severely confused by people who make arguments like the root comment. By that logic I have freedom of murder, since I'll probably only be caught and punished after I've done it