It is a natural consequence of the marketplace of ideas and of capitalism in general. Capitalism ascribes values to speech. If speech therefore has negative value, capitalism has the imperative to censor or prevent that speech from occurring. I would even hasten to argue that if you don't follow that train of thought you would be inherently anti-capitalist or unable to understand the full extent of the free market.
A great example of this is Elon Musk. Elon has said quite a lot of stupid things on twitter, many of which can be easily argued that as a result has hurt the value of his company. The imperative for his company then would be to get him to shut up.
Another example is companies firing people who go on racist tirades. By doing so, they effectively link the company to those same racist arguments and can cause the company to lose value. Of course every company is going to make a judgment as to how much value they'll lose from firing an employee: That's why companies can and do shield or defend employees who commit sexual harassment or do things that would otherwise create negative value.
Make no mistake. This is a feature and not a bug. People are just realizing that the best way to manipulate companies into action is by forcing them to lose value by association, whether it's linking ads they show in a negative context or painting employees actions in a different light. Those are all examples of consumers in a free market exercising their collective power to influence it. And I am by no means a strong proponent of capitalism at all.
I want you to cite the part where it is widely recognized by US jurisprudence, because we've seen similar cases arise (see: Cyber Promotions vs AoL) where it was argued that a company does not have freedom of speech rights to send unsolicited emails to another company's users.
Additionally you make a large mistake in assuming that a company using the government to censor someone is the same as the company itself censoring someone. If we were to take your argument to its logical conclusion and apply that ruling to individuals, I would not have the right to tell people to leave my property. If they stuck a sign in my lawn, I would not be allowed to remove it lest I am censoring them.
I want you to cite the part where it is widely recognized by US jurisprudence, because we've seen similar cases arise
You stripped away the past tense from my argument. Was that intentional, or was that a trick? Put back the past tense, and you have no point here.
If we were to take your argument to its logical conclusion and apply that ruling to individuals, I would not have the right to tell people to leave my property.
Here, you demonstrate that you didn't familiarize yourself with the case. If it's in the interest of Free Speech, then yes, as shown in the case in the YouTube video. You can answer the door and tell the Jehovah's witness to leave, but you can't keep her from walking down the sidewalk to your house. You can get a restraining order if you can show she's harassing you unlawfully. The law specifically makes a distinction between a private person who owns a house and a mining company that owns all the sidewalks and roads in town.
No, my point is that I think you're wrong. I don't believe it was ever widely recognized by US jurisprudence and I want you to cite your claims that prove it was. Preferably from a neutral source. Because as far as I can tell, it only explicitly applied to company towns, which means you bringing it up in this argument is entirely moot.
And again, you miss the distinction. A private person has the right to prevent people from being on their property, but not prevent them from using the sidewalk. A company similarly has the right to prevent people from using their property, but not the right to stop people from accessing the greater internet.
Facebook, Google, Twitter etc may be large, but them removing you or preventing you from accessing their services is not the same as a company town using the government in attempt to prevent your distribution of pamphlets. The wikipedia article for this ruling even covers this case as someone being banned from a mall is not a sufficient violation of their freedom of speech rights. To appropriately cite the case of Lloyd Corp vs Tanner:
>The facts in this case are significantly different from those in Marsh, supra, which involved a company town with "all the attributes" of a municipality, and Logan Valley, supra, which involved labor picketing designed to convey a message to patrons of a particular store, so located in the center of a large private enclave as to preclude other reasonable access to store patrons. Under the circumstances present in this case, where the handbilling was unrelated to any activity within the center and where respondents had adequate alternative means of communication, the courts below erred in holding those decisions controlling. [1]
Of which the decision should be clear: Given that there were clear alternatives in communication, this was not a violation of his rights to free speech.
I won't because as I tried to allude to earlier, he's an incredibly biased and poor source of any sort of information. One glance at his twitter and youtube account told me everything I need to know.
Again, give me a neutral source and I'll be more than happy to debate you.
A great example of this is Elon Musk. Elon has said quite a lot of stupid things on twitter, many of which can be easily argued that as a result has hurt the value of his company. The imperative for his company then would be to get him to shut up.
Another example is companies firing people who go on racist tirades. By doing so, they effectively link the company to those same racist arguments and can cause the company to lose value. Of course every company is going to make a judgment as to how much value they'll lose from firing an employee: That's why companies can and do shield or defend employees who commit sexual harassment or do things that would otherwise create negative value.
Make no mistake. This is a feature and not a bug. People are just realizing that the best way to manipulate companies into action is by forcing them to lose value by association, whether it's linking ads they show in a negative context or painting employees actions in a different light. Those are all examples of consumers in a free market exercising their collective power to influence it. And I am by no means a strong proponent of capitalism at all.