Identifying him as the owner was surely something he could, potentially, have made a privacy claim about.

If I were to hack slashdot's servers to find the IP of some AC poster and find out his real name and identify him as the poster of something he may get fired for - he'd have a legitimate claim that I violated his privacy.
On the other hand, if he turns out to be an elected representative and his AC post was a screed on the need to nail all black people to burning crosses the public interest would outweigh his privacy claim.
Generally voters would be correct in thinking they have a right to KNOW if their elected representative is a closet KKK member. Why should other objectionable publications by politicians receive any less scrutiny ?

I agree, it ought to be illegal, but while it isn't everywhere yet, it makes sense to support private citizens who try to act with what we both agree is the most respect for the rights of other people even if those rights are not protected by laws.

But from that thought it logically follows that it's probably good if private website owners choose not to provide a platform to facilitate things they obviously do not agree with.

Nobody thinks it's censorship that most churches will not let you put a link to buy the satanic bible from Amazon on their websites.
There is nothing illegal about the satanic bible, there are plenty of ways to acquire a copy - including buying it from Amazon. No Christian church is obligated to facilitate the spreading of a message they find objectionable.

>I'm sure it's legal to post your credit card details and bank information. I would very much like you to post that using your freedom of speech.

Actually, you can improve this analogy. For him to be logically consistent with the stupid argument he is making - he would have to agree that if *I* steal his wallet and post his credit card details on reddit and then return the wallet - he would be quite happy to let reddit leave the details there ?

Ironically - that is a much lesser violation of his rights than what he is actually defending. Money is not worth nearly as much as a person's right to ownership of their own bodies.

Tell that to the tabloid who took snaps of Brad Pitt boning that chick from Friends that nobody remembers and published them.
Pitt and Aniston sued, and won. The judge ruled (correctly) that freedom of speech and freedom of the press does NOT give you the right to violate somebody else's right to privacy.

This can, on rare occasions, be superceded by public interest. Anthony Weiners dick pics had public interest since HE was a public servant. That clause can never apply to a private citizen however.
There is no way anybody will convince a sober judge that Brad's junk is so important for the public interest that his right to privacy should be superceded.

Actually your cawk would still be allowed on reddit (which is probably MORE likely to kill the site than this decision is) - after all, if you upload it yourself (and I find it impossible to contemplate a world where anybody ELSE would want to look at YOUR cawk long enough to take a picture) that is clearly consent for publication.

Free speech has nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion. Your freedom has ALWAYS ended where mine began. Your free speech rights ENDS where it would violate my right to privacy.

Protecting the right to privacy is not censorship. Your freedom ENDS where mine begins. Your right to free speech ENDS where my right to privacy begins.

This has nothing to DO with offense. It has everything to do with the right to privacy, which is no LESS important a right than free speech.
And your free speech rights do NOT include the right to do things that violate my right to privacy.

A picture taken for one person, under an agreement of confidentiality (even if it's a verbal one) is NOT your property, and you cannot share it and claim that is "free speech". It's NOT free speech. It's violation of contract, theft and invasion of privacy.

More-over there are a lot of cases (like the fappening) where the sharer was never involved in the "transaction" the image was never GIVEN to them - there wasn't even FIRST level consent- those pictures were stolen by a hacker.

It has nothing to do with prudishness or offernse. I married an art model, there are many, many naked (and very explicit) pictures of her on the internet - but they are there because she CHOSE to let them be taken, she CHOSE to let them be published.
There are quite a few pictures from our shoots she didn't want published, because for some reason she wasn't happy with them - and those I have never uploaded anywhere.
If somebody were to hack me and steal them and upload them -we'd be pissed.

This is somebody whose entire body, including pussy-close-ups are already on the net, hell there is an artistic erotic picture of her that deliberately includes highly pornographic actions with a vibrator to make a point - that image is on my own website, anybody can see it.
But that image she consented to having out there.

It's not about whether nakedness is shameful - it's about who owns somebody's body, and the only RIGHT answer is: they do. THEY have the right to show it or not show it to somebody, and they get to choose whether or not so show it to you. When somebody else takes away their ability to make that choice - they are violating their body-ownership, which is rape pure and simple.

Then you either weren't paying attention or you have a very bad memory. Every attempt by the democrats to act against profiling has been met by vehement opposition from not only Republican politicians but massive outcries from Republican voters and organisations as well.

Not to mention Fox News who, of course, will always be there to remind you that racial profiling is not racist. Somehow.

No, that is your strawman.
My argument is that you cannot as a group support profiling when it's done to other people then complain when it gets done to you.
I was opposed to the IRS tactics but I actually had a RIGHT to be since I ALSO oppose all OTHER forms of profiling.

You're not wrong.

If you want to cite a definition of drinking the kool aid it's listing a whole lot of things wrong that NEVER ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
They were all predicted, none of them occurred, and none of the things in the CBO report that Faux News told you were so bad happened either because they deliberately twisted the meanings to make reports of extremely good effects sound bad - by deliberately pretending those words meant exactly the OPPOSITE of what they actually did.

Faux news claimed that the report said that social mobility had been harmed, when it ACTUALLY said that people were now MORE free to change jobs because fear of losing your insurance didn't deter them anymore, which means social mobility was improved.
The same goes for every other claim you just cited.

I don't have to be afraid of a scary effect unless it actually HAPPENED.

People who work in businesses are people, businesses are not.
They are, after all, legally distinct entities. When your talking about corporations it's even moreso since the owners of the business generally do not even WORK there.

The people IN the business, even the owners, have liberties - but there is no sane reason the business should have those same liberties.
It makes perfect sense to let Joe the Plumber put up a blog saying Kellogs Turdflakes gives you curly hair, it's quite another to allow Kellogs to advertise that as a feature on television and defraud potential customers (and ALL advertising that is not 100% scientifically verifiable is fraud in my book).
But it gets kind of hard to prosecute false advertising when you allow the companies that commit this fraud to claim they have a right to freedom of speech.

Journalists should have a right to free speech, there is no reason the paper that employs them needs the same right. Publishing the paper doesn't require that at all - only that everybody who wrote for it has that right.
That way, you can sanely regulate what's on the advertising pages for example without intruding on freedom of the press.

The same goes for all liberties.

Benjamin Franklin said of property rights that they are not a natural right at all, but one constructed by society for the benefit OF society - and should last only as long as that is true. Private ownership of any particular kind in other words, should be revoked if a point is reached where having private ownership of the resource is harming the rest of society. Laws created property, laws can destroy it.
I would be rightfully hesitant about any time that individual property is considered for such a revocation, it's risky and should only be undertaken with extreme diligence - but I would be far less concerned if it affected something only corporations own in the first place. Reducing or removing those rights almost ALWAYS ends up being to the greater benefit of society as a whole.
A good example is patents and copyrights (which, while not actually property are essentially used the same way so the same logic applies) massive REDUCING the duration of copyright now will make the individuals in society MUCH more free and only harm a few corporations - who don't have rights in the first place except for what we choose to give them because WE benefit from them having it.
The ability to mock Disney with my own Mickey Mouse cartoon is a far more important freedom than their ability to cash in on him and be protected from such critiques by copyright.

Human rights belong to humans, and only humans - not to legal entitities that are divorced from the entire human condition. They can potentially live for ever, can potentially amass wealth forever, and thus amass resources far beyond human ability - and so distort all of society. They aren't human because they are not subject to human weaknesses, ergo they should not have the rights we grant humans.

But you can't defend one and not the other.
Opposing both is logically consistent but the rightwingers have been defending one.