> pedophiles did indeed defend themselves with the argument of free speech
What are you on about? Pedophiles have the right to speak as freely as anybody else, which is to say without censure by their government. What do you think the first amendment says? Obviously "free speech" doesn't protect anybody from action, but they have the right to speak without fear.
Your post is what I'm talking about. There is no reason a company can't decide what is or isn't fit to print on their website. That said, big social media conglomerates shouldn't exist for other reasons. Nationalize Facebook, nationalize twitter. Personally, I'm done with those sites anyway, preferring federated social media.
What are you on about? Pedophiles have the right to speak as freely as anybody else, which is to say without censure by their government. What do you think the first amendment says? Obviously "free speech" doesn't protect anybody from action, but they have the right to speak without fear.
Your post is what I'm talking about. There is no reason a company can't decide what is or isn't fit to print on their website. That said, big social media conglomerates shouldn't exist for other reasons. Nationalize Facebook, nationalize twitter. Personally, I'm done with those sites anyway, preferring federated social media.