You definitely won’t have posts pulled here for political conformity, even if I’m asked the CIA to state an extreme case.

I have posted this on other board but I want to make the distinction between authors expressing ideas and the publisher supporting the idea. There is no relation. This video below can help to clarify.

Noam Chomsky discusses here what free speech really means:
YouTube: Noam Chomsky - Freedom of Speech for Views You Don't Like (Chomsky's Philosophy)

Free speech is no longer possible in the USA and Europe because of the new argument method used about calling anything that the establishment wants to hear as okay, and eveything doesn’t want to hear as “disinformation”.

You can say what you want in a bedroom, or in private discussion over dinner, but you can’t say what you want in the public discourse at large, such as an opinion column that guarantees publication prior the paper reading the column.

But all boards at Shrewd’m will remain be a safe haven.

In the video above, Chomsky had to make what should be an obvious distinction:
1. Supporting the right to express an idea.
2. Being in support of the idea.

1 and 2 have no relation.

But because information is so heavily censored today, many today are beginning to make the mistake of thinking that 1 as even partially implies 2. So that is the first thing to really understand about free speech. They have no relation.

The second key point he makes, in my opinion, is at 6:30. I would watch the whole video, but 6:30 is useful as it covers the real basics. He asked “Are you in favour of free speech for views that you like? I mean, Gobels was in favour of free speech for views he liked .. if you are in favour of free speech, then that means you are in favour of free speech precisely for views you despise.. otherwise you are not in favour of free speech. There are only two positions on free speech, you can decide which position you want”

I will go further and remind authors that if what you write is controlled, then it follows suprisingly closely that what you *think* - the very limits of your caprice and debate with others - is also controlled. The idea of controlling people’s thoughts is literally disgusting to me, so I will definitely allow people to write what they think, and protect that publishing power as far as I’m a capable.

- Manlobbi