The point is private entity, as opposed to public state. As I stated clearly, freedom of speech is a principle applied upon public law, not private law. Therefore, "censorship" is something the state does, not something private parts do among themselves.
Are anti-spam filters "censorship"? No, because they're implemented by private citizens to benefit other private citizens.
Censorship is not just the sole domain of a government. Private entities are perfectly capable of participating in it. You're conflating two distinct ideas.
> Therefore, "censorship" is something the state does, not something private parts do among themselves.
Censorship is not defined with respect to the right of free speech; public censorship may be where those two issues collide, but it's not the only kind of censorship.
The point is not newspapers "per se".
The point is private entity, as opposed to public state. As I stated clearly, freedom of speech is a principle applied upon public law, not private law. Therefore, "censorship" is something the state does, not something private parts do among themselves.
Are anti-spam filters "censorship"? No, because they're implemented by private citizens to benefit other private citizens.