If one is against freedom from (in this case corporate) censorship, one is against free speech. 'Explaining' that free speech is not actually freedom from (one's particular preferred form of) censorship is de facto a attempt to excuse that particular form of censorship from the general principles of free speech that would otherwise condemn it, and is therefore in favor of censorship and against freedom from censorship, aka free speech.

While I disagree with XKCD's (and let me note, with many here on HN; I believe I first read this argument that only states can interfere with free speech defended by HN'ers) narrowing down of the concept of free speech to "only counts as censorship if the government does it" -- and it actually warms my heart that you and many others agree with me that corporate censorship is censorship, and even more important than state censorship -- I disagree that Randall Munroe is against free speech.

I think the issue is complex, but probably related to its sister concept of tolerance and with "the paradox of tolerance" [1]:

> "The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly paradoxical idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

It's perfectly reasonable to believe Randall Munroe supports free speech and at the same time believes someone spewing hateful vitriol can be kicked out of whatever private venue by the owners/administrators of said venue. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that Randall is using a different, possibly more legalistic version of "free speech" than you. Again, you cannot claim he is against free speech because he thinks corporate censorship is ok -- first, he doesn't exactly defend corporate censorship in his comic, and second, you're begging the question! You are claiming "corporate censorship" is against free speech, which is not a foregone conclusion and is exactly what is being debated.

Finally, the whole "this is because Randall Munroe is a leftie and, like all lefties, is against free speech" angle only serves to inflame the debate with name calling. Anyone going for this "like all lefties" is not interested in honest debate at all.

I feel weird having to point all this out because I, in fact, think corporate censorship is against free speech -- my concept, not what whatever amendment says -- and in this day and age, it's even worse than state censorship.

> It's perfectly reasonable to believe Randall Munroe supports [something that he calls "free speech"] and at the same time believes someone spewing hateful vitriol can be kicked out of whatever private venue by the owners/administrators of said venue. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that Randall is using a different, possibly more legalistic [definition] of "free speech" than you.

Sure, and it's perfectly reasonable to believe someone supports, say, not destroying [something that they call "forests"] and at the same time believes rainforests can be cut down to make more room for farmland. In order for you to believe this, you simply must accept that they are using a definition of "forests" that does not include rainforests.

Nonetheless, that person is against not destroying forests-the-actual-thing, regardless of what definition they use for "forests"-the-english-word.

> The whole "this is because Randall Munroe is a leftie and, like all lefties, is against free speech" only serves to turn the debate into an absurd flamewar. Anyone going for this "like all lefties" is not interested in honest debate at all.

Who are you responding to? Because if I had said something like that, it would have been "Randall Munroe is either a leftie or a rightie and, like all lefties and righties, is against free speech".

You're using ridicule in order to avoid addressing my point. I'm uninterested in engaging you in those terms, particularly since I was polite in my reply to you. Your snarky reply failed to address anything of importance.

You pretty much ignored my reply, did a silly search & replace (ignoring HN's guidelines of assuming good faith and replying to the best possible interpretation) and decided to feel clever about it. Thanks, but no thanks.

> Who are you responding to?

Not you in that particular sentence, but user bonoboTP and others in this thread.