So, anything you disagree with is somehow a "Projection." You seem to take all my statements out of context too and simply make excuses. You stated "isn't that what is motivating you to want to disarm your law abiding countrymen?" I never stated that, nor do I have any intent on taking away the public's 2nd amendment rights as you claimed. I grew up in a family full of guns, so I have no problem with law abiding citizens right to bear arms. I probably owned more than a dozen 22 rifles as a kid, and target shooting was something we often did as a past time.

As for my remarks regarding freedom of speech, they're definitely not a straw as you claimed, nor did I claim you made those statements. My intent was to clarify what freedom of speech entails.

In regards to your statements " so Google knows what is true and what is not and gets to be the arbiter of truth?" and "Google is in no position to decide what is true or not nor should they be." -

Google doesn't have to be the arbiter of truth, this is why I clarified earlier that an opinion is not news and vice versa. That should have been clear enough to see the difference. News is the claim of an event, and those making such claims should have evidence to back them up, or they're clearly not a source of reputable news. The point here, either something happened or it didn't, and if people are going to make wild claims about events, they probably should make an effort to back up those claims. Just as I cited several sources in response to you.

And yes, Google does have the right to decide what is true or false, what is deemed as hate speech, or harassment on their own platforms. Its their property, and their right to decide what the rules are. If others don't like it, that's just too bad. People have a right to decide the rules and use of their own property. Its the same as going into someone elses home. You may not like the rules, but its their property, and people should respect it or leave.

In regards to this statement: "And you get to decide what constitutes hate speech right?"

Yes, that's correct, on Google+ I do. My moderators have kicked likely more than a half million people over the last 6 years. We have rules of conduct for a reason. If people cannot treat others with the same level of dignity and respect they would expect for themselves, then they have no business being on social media. The public's use of platforms like G+ and youtube are a privilege, not right.

I personally kicked out 5,000 people last month alone, most of them were posting spam, and a lot of it was scams for fake cryptocurrency ICO's.

in regards to this statement: "But that is OK when Google or CNN or the government does that right?" No, its not. In fact, I've been very critical of Google over the years. Its particularly bad when the people who represent your brand turn against you. I've definitely gone off on Google more times than I can count. No one gets a free ride on Google+, and Google itself is no exception. If anything, they're very careful not to cross my path.

in regards to this statement: "There is loads of gun related violence and murder there [St Louis], almost none of it perpetrated by legal gun owners.

Wrong! A lot of those gang members buy their firearms legally. Due to a bad system of checks and balances they're able to get their hands on guns pretty easily. Likewise, a lot of the perpetrators of gun violence here are often given a slap on the wrist and released back out into the public so they can commit more violence. There's clearly not enough accountability.

I also gave you several examples of people legally purchasing guns to commit violence (Sandy Hook, Florida, and Las Vegas tragedies). There's just no denying that a large amount of gun related violence results from legally obtained firearms. But you prefer to deny this.

In regards to this statement: "So doesn't that prove how foolish the background check system is?" Exactly my point! But people like yourself would rather turn the prospect of gun reform into an assault on the rights of guns owners, which simply isn't true. Gun reform does not mean taking peoples guns away, especially from law abiding citizens.

My argument regarding guns is that the right to bear arms should be reserved for law abiding citizens, not mentally deranged individuals like the lady who shot up YouTube's headquarters yesterday.

Its the fear mongering NRA that keeps pushing this narrative that the world is out to destroy our gun rights, and people should stop listening to their lies.

in regards to this statement: "LOL so you blame that slightly damaged wall on free speech?"

The point was that misinformation on the web can have real-world negative consequences, and I provided examples to prove this. Again, Freedom of Speech does not mean the freedom to harass and threaten others. But unfortunately there are bad people in this world who do bad things. To say their should be no accountability for ones actions would be ignorant at best.

Its freedom of speech, not freedom to lie through ones teeth.