Because dude, you are a condescending ass, I'm tired of these walls of text fixated on something that I already said to you that we weren't going to agree on and that we shouldn't keep arguing about.

My post wasn't "so downvoted that I had to delete it," it was at like -4. There's also no rule that says at a certain point you have to delete your comment. So what you said doesn't really make sense. I deleted it because I thought this conversation would be over and now I'm just waiting for it to end. But in your haste to be condescending about the points system on a website, you forgot that literally it being downvoted has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

If bookstores across the country decided to stop carrying books written by Democrats (or Republicans), that would not violate the Constitution in any way; and yet those people who believe in the free-speech (as a philosophical, Enlightenment, ideal) would still be opposed to that move.

This is what you originally said. Speaking of those "facts" you mentioned, you are wrong to think that every proponent of free speech would be upset by this, so I interpreted your comment to mean that in your personal opinion you would not think that is good. You later said exactly that, in your personal opinion it wouldn't be good for the bookstores to do that. This is your opinion, and it was what I responded to in the beginning.

I have been attempting to discuss that opinion by saying that, counter to your opinion, my opinion is that proponents of free speech should recognize that it is within the bookstore's free speech prerogatives to carry some books and not others. You said earlier that you recognize those two options and you find one preferable to the other. I'm saying that, while you may one preferable to the other, they are both facets of the idea of free speech and if you really support free speech you can't deny the bookstore's right to carry some books and not others as being literally the freedom of speech embodied to the T. My original comment also included the idea that because of property rights, you can't stop them from selling books they don't want to, if it were the case that you wanted to stop them, which I know it is not, which makes my point tangential and still relevant to what you said.

The fact that the comic doesn't address the larger scope of the philosophical roots of the concept of free-speech?

That's not really a "fact." A fact is like "birds migrate south in the winter" or something... not "this thing fails to mention something else." In your first comment you said "The thing is, the concept of free speech extends beyond the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment is just an attempt to codify this concept when it comes to governments. But just because the Constitution only restricts the government, doesn't mean that the philosophical concept of free-speech is restricted to governments as well." So you didn't bring up the "fact" that the comic left it out, so we haven't been talking about the "fact" that the comment left it out... The comment did leave it out. But we haven't been talking about it leaving it out, we were just talking about "it" itself.

The fact that I never denied that bookstores have property rights? The fact that I never claimed we could or should force bookstores to sell books?

Dude, you are the one that keeps bring that up. I never ever ever said that you think that they should force whatever. You literally can drop that at any point. I didn't "imply" that you thought free speech did whatever whatever whatever. You read into my comment something I didn't say, and you've been fixated on that this entire time. Please let it go.

The fact that not selling books still limits access to information (regardless of whether you think that it's acceptable or not)?

Okay, so this is something that we have actually been talking about, but again I disagree with you. It is my opinion that a Christian bookstore not selling "Mein Kampf" is not limiting your access to it, since the book is widely available elsewhere. "reglardless of whether you think it's acceptable or not" look at that sentence man, you're trying to be condescending while not even understanding what it is I've been saying. I think the Christian bookstore is exercising its freedom of speech by not selling "Mein Kampf," and that the Neo-Nazi bookstore down the street is exercising its freedom of speech by selling "Mein Kampf." It is my opinion that, in this example, your access to "Mein Kampf" has not been limited in any way sufficient enough to keep you from getting it. It is your opinion that this is not a good situation to have. It's not a "fact" that your access to this book has been limited.

The fact that there is a difference between not selling books you disagree with and narrowing your focus to a specific topic?

Jesus dude. You really had to "reach" for this one, didn't you? This isn't a "fact" that we've been discussing. It's something you brought up once because you didn't like the example I used. It was my opinion that Mein Kampf isn't related to the central theme of a Christian bookstore, and thus it is irrelevant to it and shouldn't be thought of as something they need to sell, in the same way that Muslim bookstores shouldn't be expected to sell economic books on southeast asia. You didn't like my example, that's fine, maybe it's not a great example. But the "difference between not selling books you disagree with and narrowing your focus" is not a "fact" that we have been discussing because we "disagree" on it. I agree, narrowing your focus and refusing something you disagree with are not the same at all. Which is why I neglected to talk about it after you brought it up, it's just so out of left field and beside the point that it didn't merit discussion.

The fact that reddit has claimed to support any content no matter whether it disagrees with it or not?

What? Dude. Are you serious? This is a "fact" that we have been discussing? At what point did either of us bring that up?

Furthermore, reddit didn't get rid of FPH because it disagreed with it. It got rid of it because they were harassing other users as a group. So not only has this fact not been part of our conversation, it was irrelevant to it anyway.

The only lack of facts here are yours.

Dude you claimed all this specious shit was "facts" just so you could say that you "have facts" and that I "lack facts," like that alone merits any kind of anything to your side of this discussion. This is why I didn't respond to your comment originally. You are so out of left field with just how even a conversation works that it is getting extremely tiring to put up with your bull shit. Your willful lack of understanding and condescending tone made me think that you either get some weird joy out of this or are a troll and have just been fucking with me this whole time.

Your argument reduced to "I feel limiting it on a local level is okay". Neat.

See what I mean? You are purposefully, willfully misrepresenting my side of the argument, either because you are too stupid to understand what I've been saying or you're a troll or some other reason.

I do not have a copy of "Mein Kampf" in my house. According to you, I have "limited" it on a local level. I'm not saying that "limiting it on a local level is okay," I'm saying that literally everybody in the world already does this and it's silly to think something is wrong with it. Christian bookstores don't sell the satanic bible or whatever its called. Health food stores don't sell "My First Fry-Daddy" cookbooks. Music stores don't sell "Why Learning to Play Guitar is a Waste of Time." This happens in reality, these things are real, this is what I've been trying to talk about, and it is my opinion that nothing is wrong with this, and that these stores doing this does not literally stop you from obtaining a copy of those books, and is thus not censoring them or entirely limiting your access to them.

You claim that pure opinions are discussed all the time. Now what?

I don't even understand what you are trying to say here.

I thought you were deeply concerned about the nature of free speech? What happened?

Lol. Here's you trying to be condescending again. "deeply concerned" you're the one that originally tried to take issue with a webcomic designed to be funny and not a dissertation on free speech laws and practices in the western world.

which you of course didn't address in your haste to make "witty" response

Here's you trying to be condescending again. I wasn't in "haste to make a witty response," my response was not an attempt at being "witty." I guess you just didn't understand what I meant. Let me clarify.

There's a huge difference between not selling books because they are not relevant to some topic, and because you are deliberately deciding that you don't want to sell them because you disagree with them. If a bookstore wants to focus on religious books, then I wouldn't have a problem if it sold religious books and not treatise on economics. If, however, it's a Muslim book store and it refuses to sell books that at Sunni, and only sells books that are from a Shiite perspective, then that's another issue.

It is your opinion that one of those books is irrelevant and the other isn't. My response to that was trying to illustrate that while you may find the book relevant, somebody else might just say it isn't relevant and then the bookstore wouldn't be expected to sell it. I'm saying that's a dumb rule for taking some books and not others. Case in point. I think "Mein Kamp" is irrelevant to a Christian bookstore, you said that you think it's not because Hitler mentions Christianity in it. This is what I meant. These are our opinions (you see how we keep coming back to that) and are thus not a good means of deciding what books we expect at what stores.