” And what if that doesn’t happen? Do you have half a trillion dollars in your back pocket?
Nobody’s going to take that massive market share with a couple of coders in a garage somewhere.
If we don’t smash them with the government, they aren’t going to get smashed.”
Well, ok? What does “smash” entail that is actual legal and constitutional?
If you do, that genie isnt going back into the bottle. If you want to use the state to make up for our laziness the past 10 years, then dont be shocked when it is used in a way that you wont like 10 years from now.
Constitutional intent is to secure freedom of speech. Have you ever heard of this concept known as Lèse-majesté. The British routinely punished people for offending the dignity of government officials.
The founders explicitly forbid government interference with those who would criticize the government, and several of them explained that the ability to speak freely was a necessary component of a democratic system.
Their intent was to prevent speech from being restrained, and they never thought such a thing would be possible by any force other than government, so they mention it and none other.
I have long argued that the danger is in allowing censorship, and who is doing it makes no difference so far as the consequences are concerned.
If you do, that genie isnt going back into the bottle. If you want to use the state to make up for our laziness the past 10 years, then dont be shocked when it is used in a way that you wont like 10 years from now.
Using the state to force compliance with the first amendment can hardly be turned around on us.