Really? I think it's because you can't come close to articulating a principle around free speech and private property that is even a little bit consistent with what you want.
That's fine, there's a place for special pleading but it's kind of ironic given your righteous rhetoric.
...it is my understanding that Google-Nazi solicited this commentary...
You think Google urged this guy to go on Fox Business and trash them? You might want to re-read the article.
I articulate it well enough, but you are seemingly unwilling to agree on the point that free speech is absolutely necessary to keep our system of governance and our liberties. You place "private property of *COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS*" above protecting the public's right to speak and be heard by whomever is willing.
That's fine, there's a place for special pleading but it's kind of ironic given your righteous rhetoric.
Here's my special pleading.
" I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it."
Censoring public speech is a red line so far as i'm concerned.