I do[Even though Heller vs. DC said differently--all rights, and that was on PRIVATE PROPERTY].
And, yet you still skipped over the contract part. We disagree. You can praise Obama, but not on my property.
The monopoly practices of FB and others is a separate issue.
“I do”
Do what? Believe that free speech is an unlimited right?
First, it isn’t. No rights are unlimited. But more so, you’ve spent the entirety of this thread advocating those very limits.
“yet you still skipped over the contract part”
You apparently did not read my entire post, because I most certainly did not skip over the contract issue. In fact I’ve been bringing up contract law throughout our discussion.
“The monopoly practices of FB and others is a separate issue.”
Of course they are not. They never have been. They never can be. Your attempt to compartmentalize issues just underscores your simplistic approach to the subject at hand by resorting to Democracy-in-a-can catch phrases like “property rights.”
Property rights, like all rights, have limitations. You have the right to own property. You have the right to own guns. But the government can and should regulate the manufacture and sale of guns because some people have lost their legal right to own a gun due to a felony conviction. So your rights do not mean that you can manufacture and sell guns from your property without complying with the law.
The fact that Facebook is a monopoly for a particular method of communications is 100% relevant to why the government can, does, and must regulate entities such as Facebook.
You’re supporting the covert replacement of our representative government with a plutocracy. And when it takes the form of political hegemony, free speech has been trampled upon. Accepting this as status quo is no solution. There must be a remedy.
“You can praise Obama, but not on my property.”
I’ll add this to my list of ridiculous assertions on your part even if you meant it hypothetically. I’ve had no praise for that man.