&gt;&gt;You f\<i>king w\</i>\<i>re, I&#x27;m going to ra\</i>e you, and kill your family and pet, and tort\* you till you beg for mercy, and I&#x27;m going to feed your pieces to your dogs, if you dare talk anything on this issue again.<p>As you see, this works both ways.<p>Above, it should have been clear I was <i>clearly</i> using threatening language for elucidation process. And yet, something _must_ have &#x27;jumped&#x27; in you. Even if a little bit. Even after &#x27;<i>&#x27; out the important words. Even after I toned down what I&#x27;d originally planned to write. Now imagine, I didn&#x27;t make it as obvious it was for education purposes, but it was reasonably clear to guess I meant it that way. And then imagine there was no commentary. Now consider the possibility I am a random stranger who might actually have meant it. Women and minorities </i>do* go through it every day. Every damn day. Now, you can call it free speech, and banning anything similar censoring. In which case, I will have to work on a few sockpuppet bots to prove my point more clearly ;). My point is, you are being reductive in looking the world as &#x27;censorship&#x27;, and &#x27;free speech&#x27;. This argument has happened for thousands of years, and it speeds up if all caught up on the definitions of &#x27;reasonable threats&#x27;, &#x27;hate speech&#x27; etcetera, and the historical contexts surrounding such issues.