Explain what you think the principle of freedom of speech means then.
"Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used."
"Freedom of speech and expression has a long history that predates modern international human rights instruments.[5] It is thought that the ancient Athenian democratic principle of free speech may have emerged in the late 6th or early 5th century BC.[6] The values of the Roman Republic included freedom of speech and freedom of religion.[7] Concepts of freedom of speech can be found in early human rights documents.[5] England's Bill of Rights 1689 legally established the constitutional right of freedom of speech in Parliament which is still in effect"
You are conflating freedom of speech with freedom of expression. Keep in mind that Freedoms cannot be abrogated. Just to make this a bit more clear it means that freedom of speech supersedes freedom of expression legally and it will do so forever.
Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Again, just to clarify, in order to persecute someone under freedom of expression not only must they be in direct violation of other freedoms and rights but they must be attempting to express or impart an idea. Calling someone a fag does not fall under this FYI.
The definition I operate by is close to the American constitution interpretation, where even then by the way, has limitations to it. The concept of free speech exists to support the ideal that anyone should be free to express their opinions and ideas without needing to fear retaliation, getting into legal trouble or being censored. If said speech becomes of illegal nature, threatening or a whole list of other sentiments, then freedom of speech isn't something to hide behind any longer. In the real world, law enforcements would get involved with bomb threats - You wouldn't get away with "It's my right to say what I want!".
Yes, you have conflated freedom of speech with freedom of expression. Look at the definitions above and see that it outlines its own principles very clearly. The only incident in which your freedoms end is when they are in violation of the freedoms of another.
And Larian is a privately owned company, thus their social platforms aren't the same sort of public space as the park down the street is. Even there, police would wrinkle their noses and have a chat with you if you began being rude or antagonising towards other citizens.
Yes I never contested that, merely your understanding of these freedoms. And yes, sometimes official government agencies have agendas and fall under the agendas of government but this is not a discussions of the drawbacks of big government or excessive governing. You can choose to moderate in this manner while another private domain might choose not to and that is their right.
So no, it's as simple as 'behave or be talked to' on most privately owned places on the internet.
Besides, is it really that difficult to be asked to simply behave?
Again, I didn't contest this either. What I have been contesting is peoples understanding of human civil liberties(freedom of expression) and human rights(freedom of speech). I've also been contesting the misguided viewpoint that things are a one way street or other fallacious viewpoints by citing history and evidence(800 year serfdom, 600 year occupation by ottoman empire). You can read this as one side has to behave while the other doesn't or as both sides incite disorder yet only one is held accountable.
