The first free speech case doesn’t bode well for free speech or freedom of thought on the Internet. If only government is forbidden from squelching free speech then that means FB, Google, Twitter, etal. are free to become arbiters of what will and will not be allowed to be posted on the ‘Net’. Not a good thing for conservative voices.
Where I see an in against Twitter and FB is their rules which are not uniformly enforced and it is very obvious.
Understood, but not true; folks use the mentioned serices as a matter of choice, let the market decide. Okay, google FB Twit et all are leftist statist garbage, but so what, move on to some other service, or voice your opinion so that some favorable source is developed for your consumption.
Having anyone other than the government restricted is not good for conservatives- think of the issue around the equal time on talk radio- a majority conservative market- want the govt/courts to require equal time to the commie loving left on BOT radio or similar?
Anyways;
Very good point.
But, if government is doing their Constitutional duty, they should be protecting our rights, correct?
Things like free speech, freedom of association, unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.
At a minimum they should break up the oligopolies the Bolsheviks are using to (try to) silence and manipulate us.
Maybe I am engaging in wishful thinking here, I don’t know.
Your point is very valid.
Not necessarily, but you still can’t discriminate.