Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sloanrb

I supported company’s rights to moderate however they wanted to up until about 5 or 6 years ago. I was on the “If you don’t like it, start your own” bandwagon. The first amendment restricts the power of government, not of private entities.

But it became obvious around and after 2016 that nearly all of the media became proxy propaganda arms of one political party. Is that their right individually? Yes. When it becomes collective, even without explicit collusion, then it becomes a “public square” problem for free speech.


14 posted on 10/04/2022 6:46:39 AM PDT by z3n (Kakistocracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: z3n

Agreed

Marsh v. Alabama was a case that prohibited blocking of free speech in a company town. This was a town where the company owned everything, including roads and sidewalks. The SC ruled that they couldn’t block people’s First Amendment rights in public areas.

Companies have been required to allow speech they may not want. Imagine AT&T in the 1940s or 1950s denying people phone service because they didn’t like your beliefs. They were prohibited from doing that because that would infringe on free speech.

If a company gets large enough to be able to be a gatekeeper to stifle free speech then there should be restrictions on their ability to restrict free speech.


18 posted on 10/04/2022 8:38:37 AM PDT by sloanrb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson