noun
1.The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Does this fit that definition? I would argue no it does not but I’m open to be convinced otherwise.
The business enterprises of these people are being targeted. If some of those happen to be publishing businesses, they are included, but publishing businesses or opinion sites etc are not being singled out. It’s not the content of these sites (those that are content sites) that’s the issue, it’s the business beneficial ownership. It’s their finances that are the target, not their speech.
Publishing businesses are still businesses and subject to the law. If they want to exercise their speech rights in other legal ways, they are free to do so.
I agree with simonh on this one. Ideas aren’t being censored. Political parties aren’t being censored. I do not agree with saying “because government” makes it political. That’s like saying speeding tickets are political “because government” is involved in the process.
noun 1.The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Does this fit that definition? I would argue no it does not but I’m open to be convinced otherwise.