Did you even bother RTFS?
Yes, I did. That sounds like what the author was getting at.
Bullshit and utter nonsense. In a capitalist system, anyone can sell anything they want (within the confines of legality) and the market will determine whether that was a reasonable idea or not.
Yes, and part of the mechanism that determines this involves the free exchange of information and opinion on a given product. Whether or not people own it or not.
That was the point. What did you *still* not understand after having it explained three times?
As I *already* explained, it's an illogical and defensive extrapolation; why would someone having the right to freely sell something imply that someone else didn't have the right to share their opinion on it, regardless of whether they own or intend owning it?!
Yet people- yourself included- seem to act as if this is somehow an attack on the "free" market. It isn't; quite the opposite, as I said, the free market requires freedom of information to operate efficiently.
Go and reread what I said; you had it explained to you and you still made the same stupid mistake of assuming that "free market -> no freedom of speech to criticise" (which is what it boils down to). I'm not rehashing what I said a fourth time.
Adding "PERIOD" in BIG CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't make your argument any stronger.
Whining about whether such a product or service should be allowed to exist misses the point that it's not up to you whether they should be allowed to exist or not.
Don't get the impression that anyone was denying this; rather they were criticising it. *You* were the one who jumped to this conclusion, presumably because you assume that (valid) criticism of a product is an attack on the free market- even though it's quite the opposite- and defensively start making assumptions about what people were actually saying.
If you don't like it, buy something else.
That doesn't negate anyone's right to criticise the product. But we're going round in circles here.