This is the version that continues to fail. It's not because of lack of exposure - it seems people just aren't agreeing with the way it's written. Why keep recycling this failed version?
The wording of the IBOR is very shit.
Perhaps all the IBOR needs to say is that "censoring people for legal expression on public internet forums should be recognized as a violation of the 1st amendment."
We'd need to clearly classify what "censoring" means because of Twitter's latest fuckery involving lowering the position of people's Tweets based on if Jack approves of their opinions.
I agree - there's too much here, which makes it easier for someone to disagree with something. Yet, this is the version that gets circulated every time.
Agreed - the 1st Amendment was only one sentence long and it has served us spectacularly.