monkeydelarge: You don't get it. All you are doing is saying, that people have the right to this and the right to that. That stores don't have any responsibility. That store can do whatever the fuck they want. That morals don't matter. Blah Blah. What a load of bullshit.. Rights don't = the moral high ground. Having the right to do something doesn't mean people should make use of that right. Having the right to do something, doesn't make it some magical I can do whatever I want and it's the right thing to do pass. Before the 1800s, men used to have the right to beat their wives. So like I said rights don't = what is right. If tomorrow, your government gave you the right to murder innocent people, would you go out and make use of that right? Based on your post, I'm guessing your answer would be yes...

From a moral point of view, stores should never refuse to sell your product due to "feelings" and only refuse to sell a product for sane practical reasons. But what about their freedom? Fuck their freedom to behave like the thought police. Stores have a responsibility to ensure we live in a society that upholds the freedom of speech. The freedom to take part in censorship shouldn't exist. For the same reason, people don't have the freedom to run around and assault people on the streets. If you don't like that then don't become the owner of a store. It's as simple as that. And if you don't want to be responsible for children, never have kids. If you want all the freedom that you can get, then don't put yourself in a position where you are responsible for anything. In your post, you are also arguing based on your own definition of censorship, not the real definition of censorship.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities, corporations or other groups or institutions. You can't just make up your own definition of censorship and then say, if a store rejects a product because of "feelings" it's not censorship. That is insane.

I'm not saying people are entitled to having other people sell products for them. I'm saying people are entitled to not have their products rejected by stores because of "feelings". There is a difference because a person is a person and a person doesn't have the same responsibilities as a store. Letting free speech pass through an access point(a store) is totally different have someone giving someone else a megaphone. A store selling a product for someone or some publisher is not a free hand out.

Yes, freedom of speech is more important than the freedom to take part in censorship. And defending the right for petty childish ignorant over sensitive people who only care about money(the majority of humanity) to be thought police is pure insanity. Do you know how important freedom of speech is? A lot more important than some asshat's right to play god emperor with his store... If I had it my way, stores would not have the right to take part in censorship because the free smooth flow of information is one of the best things we have right now. For example, look at how the internet has benefited us so far... Why do you think countries like North Korea don't let their citizens access the internet... And just so you know, if one store refuses to sell a product because of "feelings", other stores are probably doing the same so I highly doubt, a product could only be banned from one store. So you underestimate the level of censorship that could result from stores taking part in censorship. What makes you think, you can always just go to another store? What if the other store refused to sell the product too because of "feelings"? What if you live somewhere that only has one store? A lot of people live in areas where there is only one store that sells video games, for example. In the USA's south and south west, there are areas where the only store that sells music, DVDs, video games etc is Walmart. They could drive for hours and go to another store but it would cost these people lots of time and gas money. Walmart has an insane amount of power in the USA. If Walmart banned a game, it would make a huge difference. Because of Walmart, the Monolith devs had to make a censored version of Blood just for them or miss out on ton's of money because so many Americans are Walmart shoppers... And then imagine if Walmart and Amazon.com banned a product or demanded a censored version..

monkeydelarge: I'm not saying people are entitled to having other people sell products for them. I'm saying people are entitled to not have their products rejected by stores because of "feelings".

monkeydelarge: If I had it my way, stores would not have the right to take part in censorship because the free smooth flow of information is one of the best things we have right now.

DieRuhe: Call me blind, but where is Greenlight now? I scrolled through the whole storefront and couldn't seem to find it; all I see is tons and tons of "recommendations."

monkeydelarge: Yes, freedom of speech is more important than the freedom to take part in censorship. And defending the right for petty childish ignorant over sensitive people who only care about money(the majority of humanity) to be thought police is pure insanity. Do you know how important freedom of speech is? A lot more important than some asshat's right to play god emperor with his store... If I had it my way, stores would not have the right to take part in censorship because the free smooth flow of information is one of the best things we have right now.

Nirth: I don't understand why a business shouldn't have the right to choose what they sell. It's as an inherent right as a buyer to choose what he or she does with their money.

monkeydelarge: A store has responsibilities(from a moral point of view).

monkeydelarge: You are obviously incapable of seeing things from a moral point of view then.

monkeydelarge: True. So your moral point of view is just shit because it supports censorship and worse.