You cannot have "free speech" and limit free speech at the same time. The argument that, "It isn't government, so anything goes" is not holding to hold up and we need to just cut it loose now.
You don't understand Free Speech. That right is a protection from the government. So you can forget about that in private forum.
Now, if you want to have a forum with no standards of conduct, maybe somebody will build and operate one. Dunno. Meanwhile we have fora that follow the longstanding pattern set by newspaper letters to the editor. The editor decides what's fit and what isn't. Newspapers and magazines are businesses that curate their offerings. Wiki gets to do the same thing. You remember free enterprise, don't you? If you don't like the standards on one, go elsewhere. What do you think of SI in that regard? Is it a good model?
You cannot have "free speech" and limit free speech at the same time. The argument that, "It isn't government, so anything goes" is not holding to hold up and we need to just cut it loose now.
You say, best I can tell, that this approach is not holding up. I infer that what you mean by that is that voices you want to hear are being suppressed. Just as businesses, as we've discussed, get to decide to protect their businesses by requiring masks or vaccinations, these businesses get to do so by setting standards for content. Best I can tell they're focused on suppressing what they consider dangerous either to the public or to public perception thus to their businesses. Once again, you do remember free enterprise, don't you?
I believe he MUST bring the hammer down on these organizations.
What would you have him do? Deny them the right to protect their businesses as they see fit as long as they aren't breaking any laws? The only way I see this the legitimate role of government going beyond enforcing laws is if the forum is being insufficient in stopping dangerous postings, not for being responsible to the commonweal in that regard.
I think your view of that is skewed because you see them suppressing a political position rather than reducing danger. You don't see what you espouse as dangerous so you frame it as political suppression rather than risk reduction. |
