RE: There's absolutely nothing wrong...
Are you trying to suggest that harassing someone is Censorship now? You are grasping at straws, trying to make it seem that people can do anything they want as long as they claim it's protected by the freedom of expression, and that I suggested or said anything to that effect. Your question is a Complex Question Fallacy, as it's a yes and no question with a loaded premise that damns me if I agree or if I disagree as I must accept the premise regardless if the premise is false, and it is false because I never suggested that people harass or disturb others and do so because it's their freedom of expression, but here you are yet again still repeating the same vain nonsense that tries to suggest that.
People have a right to Boo and Booing is not censorship. It's not censorship to harass people, it's harassment. Censorship is the act of Suppressing or Stopping someone from expressing themselves. Censorship is not Freedom of Expression, and that is exactly what Booing someone who is giving a speech is. Booing someone all over town is Harassment, Booing someone at a speaking engagement is neither Harassment or Censorship. Booing someone all over town is not Censorship, as even then the person can still express themselves WHILE you harass them.
I'm suggesting that harassment is functionally-indistinguishable from censorship.
If you disagree, please present your preferred definitions of "harassment" and "censorship".
It's not functionally indistinguishable in numerous ways and circumstances. If you disagree exemplify how someone can STOP or SUPPRESS someone expressing themselves by harassing them.
I'll put this here:
You seem think that downvoting someone is harassment, yet nothing stops the individual being harassed from expressing themselves while being downvoted, so in effect You think they are being harassed but they clearly are free to express themselves regardless of downvoting. You also seem to think that someone booing someone else is no different from censorship even though someone booing does not stop someone from speaking WHILE the other individual is booing them, even if it's to the point of being considered harassing, they can still express themselves WHILE the other person is harassing them.
Specifically for differences of opinion.
If your rep is -9 then it is extremely difficult (nearly impossible) to participate in any form of discussion with the broader steem community. I've even tried to direct-link to their comments and the link does not work.
It's de facto censorship.
AND, I'M EVEN AFRAID TO MENTION THEIR NAMES BECAUSE I FEAR BEING TARGETED/HARRASED/DOWNVOTED BY UNREASONABLE PEOPLE, SO THERE IS CLEARLY A "CHILLING-EFFECT" WHICH IS, I WOULD ARGUE, PART OF THE INTENT OF THE DOWNVOTERS.
If nobody can hear you over the incessant air-horns, then you are de facto censored.
Do you think that people who disagree should (EITHER) express their disagreement with reasonable words (OR) simply avoid each other (use the "mute" function)?
Ad hominem attacks and air-horning your opponent are the tactics of FASCISM (dismantles open dialogue).
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
Do you personally think it's possible to harass someone with downvotes?
No. Downvoting is expressing disagreement or disapproval, no one can use it to demean or otherwise attack the person.
From your own quote,
Downvoting someone because you disagree with their opinion is discriminatory.
Reducing someone's rep below zero has the effect of nullifying or impairing a person's voice (free-speech).
When these behaviors become repetitive, they are defined as bullying.
Downvoting someone into negative rep clearly SUPPRESSES them from expressing themselves (all of their posts are automatically hidden, which is another way of saying "suppressed").
How? How can someone "still express themselves" over the sound of an air-horn blast?
I said how: the person can still express themselves WHILE you harass them.