Corporate Speech Amendment - squaring rights of corporations with rights of natural persons?

So wouldn't charging money to run a commercial, be an infringement on my speech?

Not under the Amendment I proposed, because I have not "availed the public" of the medium. In your hypothetical, the medium is behind a paywall. The Amendment is aimed almost exclusively at social media sites where the general public debates.
 
Just say "I think this proposed Constitutional Amendment should distinguish between Corporations, LLCs, LLPs, etc." ;)

I chose to put "corporations" since it's shorter than "a legal entity formed by an associations of individuals for the purpose of maximizing profit and limiting liability." Perhaps the Amendment needs a new clause explaining that. It should certainly encompass all publicly-traded C-corps, but no reason it shouldn't apply to an LLC. Which massive social media tech companies are organized as LLCs?
Could have just said "companies" no need for naming the different types of companies.

Why should it encompass publicly traded companies if not being able to silence speech of users on their platform causes them to lose revenue via f protests, boycotts, and negative publicity? The number one goal of any corporation should be to maximize shareholder equity (this is learned in any 1st year business course).
 
Could have just said "companies" no need for naming the different types of companies.

Why should it encompass publicly traded companies if not being able to silence speech of users on their platform causes them to lose revenue via f protests, boycotts, and negative publicity? The number one goal of any corporation should be to maximize shareholder equity (this is learned in any 1st year business course).

Because interests of a C-corp, which are exclusively economic, are in conflict with the interests of natural persons in expressing personal or political points of view. Also, Corporations derive certain benefits from that business arrangement, including limited liability, which justify limiting their speech rights in certain contexts. At the end of the day, we need to be able to speak more than the corporations need to make money.

Right now, we have lots of SJWs lobbying big corporations to take principled political stands on issues that have nothing to do with their business. The end result is that everything becomes political. That might maximize profit, but it makes the world a shitty place. This Amendment takes away the ability of big social media companies to "deplatform" dissenting opinions at the behest of SJWs.
 
Exactly. If they're Right or Left, they should just say so and open up their registrations only to people on the Right or Left, respectively. If they purport to be neutral, they must treat people neutrally.
Regarding the final sentence, the problem is you can never truly eliminate bias, so how do you regulate it?
 
This proposed Amendment isn't limiting the ability of corporations to speak. It's limiting their ability to censor speech of private persons when they host speech in forums open to the public. If you say offensive things the office, they can still kick you out or fire you.

Continuing on with the Alex Jones example, they haven't scrubbed him completely. They could, and I suspect a lot of people would be happy about that. But then again, I'm not so happy about Google having the ability to scrub anyone from the internet. The "private company, can't judge" paradigm falls apart the more Google comes to resemble a government.

To preface, I've skipped most of the other posts so apologies if someone else is way out in front with the argumentation.

If you come to my house and the government says I can't kick you out when I hear shit outta your mouth I don't like, then I feel fundamentally oppressed. Ignoring my right to oppose the speech, it's my fuckin' property.

Then there's no real argument here and Google is nowhere near a government. Let's see the US get fined by the EU and us pay up. When's Google gotta make good on their loss in court?

At what point to you reconcile your position with the adage of...

th



Like many Libertarian ideals, they are flawed and dont take everything into account.

1. Current internet business are being held ACCOUNTABLE for what is on their sites and that is not the case in non-internet businesses. For example, if you go into a McDonalds and hear a customer say a racist comment, McDonalds cannot be held accountable for it. Or if you are in a Mall and someone kills someone else, the Mall owner is not responsible for it.

2. Sites make MONEY off of people just for going to the site let alone off of people with accounts on them like Youtube which gathers personal information/habits/interests and sells it to other companies. This makes you a CUSTOMER in all sense of the word as the company is making money off of you. It is against the constitution to treat one customer different from the other as it is discrimination.

This is not to be confused by the cake makers refusing to make something for a gay person as they are not customers yet...you do not have a right to be a customer to a business.

As a Libertarian you should be standing for not allowing rights to be infringed upon.

1. Sounds right.

2. Not sure taking a look-see makes one a customer. Not sure there aren't plenty of folks Constitutionally discriminated against when it comes to refusing service.

th


Not sure it's so much you don't have a right to be a customer but rather you don't have a right to demand a specific product.

I am, in spite of not identifying as a Libertarian.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the final sentence, the problem is you can never truly eliminate bias, so how do you regulate it?

If the Amendment applies (i.e. a for-profit corporation opens it’s medium to the public at large), then the focus is not on the company’s bias or motive for censoring speech. The focus is on the content of the speech itself. The analysis similar to established First Amendment analysis: Does it fall into an “unprotected” category of speech (there are several)? If so, it may be censored, as long as it is done equally to all speech of that category. If not, are there objective circumstances justifying regulation of the time, place, or manner of the expression? If so, the speech may be regulated appropriately. Suppose for example that a Conservative Sherdogger posts a political thread in the Heavies, or he posts something that is full of curse words. @panamaican may move or modify that thread to so that it goes in the appropriate place (War Room), or perhaps delete it with an advisory message. As always, posts which constitute harassment may be regulated as to the manner of expression.

Keep in mind, pursuant to this Amendment, many companies will voluntarily avail their services to the public at large because that’s where the business is. Facebook wouldn’t be where it is if it billed itself as “a place for progressive Liberals.” Also, the standards for First Amendment speech are much easier to navigate than whatever “hate speech” rules these companies purport to enforce, because the concept of hate speech is inherently subjective (that’s why the SCOTUS has repeatedly declined to recognize it as an unprotected category). The overall effect is that people will be able to post on social media with the same freedom they enjoy in public.

I’m not convinced that a Constitutional Amendment is the best way to accomplish this BTW. It’s just one means of accomplishing the same goal: protecting and promoting speech by natural persons.
 
To preface, I've skipped most of the other posts so apologies if someone else is way out in front with the argumentation.

If you come to my house and the government says I can't kick you out when I hear shit outta your mouth I don't like, then I feel fundamentally oppressed. Ignoring my right to oppose the speech, it's my fuckin' property.

Then there's no real argument here and Google is nowhere near a government. Let's see the US get fined by the EU and us pay up. When's Google gotta make good on their loss in court?

At what point to you reconcile your position with the adage of...

th





1. Sounds right.

2. Not sure taking a look-see makes one a customer. Not sure there aren't plenty of folks Constitutionally discriminated against when it comes to refusing service.

th


Not sure it's so much you don't have a right to be a customer but rather you don't have a right to demand a specific product.

I am, in spit of not identifying as a Libertarian.

This is appears to be a well-considered post. I’d like to respond in depth. Unfortunately, I have to go to bed now. I will respond in full tomorrow. Goodnight Cubo!
 
This is appears to be a well-considered post. I’d like to respond in depth. Unfortunately, I have to go to bed now. I will respond in full tomorrow. Goodnight Cubo!

Thanks. Don't blame you for needing to rub one out in order to clear your head after that paradigm shift.

<GinJuice>


:D
 
2. Not sure taking a look-see makes one a customer. Not sure there aren't plenty of folks Constitutionally discriminated against when it comes to refusing service.

th


Not sure it's so much you don't have a right to be a customer but rather you don't have a right to demand a specific product.

I am, in spit of not identifying as a Libertarian.

...come on man.

Denial of service to a person is not treating a CUSTOMER differently as they are NOT customers yet. Once accepted as a customer, they cannot treat you differently and this is why the government was able to force bus companies to stop telling black people to sit in the back, because they accepted money and treated them differently.

Every law related to the internet should be reworked and modernized.
 
I guess I don't really see the point, for a few reasons.

1.) Wouldn't companies be able to carefully curate their content declarations, or make them so vague as to be completely meaningless as to be unenforceable? For example, saying ''liberal'' or ''conservative'' content is basically meaningless. If someone says they're ''conservative'' do you really know what they mean by that? Some pretty interesting conversations can be had about just what the hell that word even means, and what it's meant throughout history: from support of absolute monarchy to american libertarianism.

2.) Would companies not be able to change their declarations? If not that seems pretty Draconian, and if they could what's the point of the declaration in the first place?

3.) Wouldn't the companies who decided for themselves to be ''neutral'' be just like companies we already have? for example, voat, gab.ai, dailymotion, 4chan. It seems like the internet itself remaining neutral is a lot more important than any one service which uses the internet.
 
Denial of service to a person is not treating a CUSTOMER differently as they are NOT customers yet. Once accepted as a customer, they cannot treat you differently and this is why the government was able to force bus companies to stop telling black people to sit in the back, because they accepted money and treated them differently.

Are you suggesting it's ok to simply not let the black folks on the bus to begin with?
 
Are you suggesting it's ok to simply not let the black folks on the bus to begin with?

No, I am suggesting the actual law which is that you cannot force a business to accept you as a customer...IE, you do NOT have a right to service. Thanks for the race baiting though.
 
To preface, I've skipped most of the other posts so apologies if someone else is way out in front with the argumentation.

If you come to my house and the government says I can't kick you out when I hear shit outta your mouth I don't like, then I feel fundamentally oppressed. Ignoring my right to oppose the speech, it's my fuckin' property.

Then there's no real argument here and Google is nowhere near a government. Let's see the US get fined by the EU and us pay up. When's Google gotta make good on their loss in court?

At what point to you reconcile your position with the adage of...

th
Let me be clear (using my Obama voice now): I am not suggesting that we abolish the rights of private property owners to exclude people, the rights of private companies to generally "refuse service," or the rights of private persons to express opinions through their businesses. That would be a straw man caricature of my proposal.

I am, however, suggesting that our Constitution should protect the rights of natural persons to speak freely as against powerful associational entities. The key idea is this: sometimes the "rights" of two parties are mutually exclusive, and in that situation, someone's rights must ultimately yield. In the real world, the rights of natural persons to speak freely directly conflict with the rights of multinational corporations to censor opposing views. In other words we can't have our free and open dialogue and also have pervasive corporate censorship too. Accordingly, in the realm of internet speech, I propose that the substantive speech rights of for-profit corporate entities must submit to the substantive speech rights of natural persons. In other words, when the rights of natural persons to enjoy "freedom of speech" are in conflict with the rights of corporations to enjoy the same, the rights of the corporations must yield.

Because I have proposed a Constitutional Amendment, there is no point in arguing that it would "unconstitutional" or that it "violates the First Amendment" (the Constitution is, of course, ipso facto "Constitutional"). Notwithstanding all that, the First Amendment exists precisely because the Framers were concerned that powerful entities would censor dissidents. The Framers wanted to protect the ability of natural persons to engage in public discourse; they did not intend to protect the rights of Google to retaliate against Joe Blow for his support of Donald Trump. When the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments were ratified, the idea that "free speech has consequences" generally meant that individual persons who disagree are free to exercise their own right to free speech by voting against you, refusing to patronize your business, or excluding you from their property. Never did the Framers envision that large multinational corporations (which have only economic interests, and are generally free from human desires / needs / constraints / consequences) would be able to "deplatform" dissidents at will. The power differential between corporations and natural persons speaks volumes – they can do to you, but you cannot do to them. Consider also the fact that most "speech" these days takes place online, particularly in the realm of social media. Social media is so ingrained in our societies that one is effectively barred from active participation without it. Had the Framers confronted or foreseen the specter of pervasive corporate censorship, they surely would have acted to prevent it.

You suggested that limiting the ability of corporations to censor people online will lead to abolition of your right to exclude objectionable people from your property or business. Your concern is misplaced. First, social media sites are not perfectly analogous to "brick and mortar" property or businesses. Nobody "owns" the internet, and anyone can access it; users don't physically occupy it the way they might occupy space in a store. Someone may "own" a website, but that essentially boils down to ownership of intellectual property, not physical property. There is perhaps an argument that companies physically own the server space where data is stored, or the labor it took to create a particular site / medium, but that argument is unavailing because the data which creates any particular "room" or "page" on the internet is stored in many places (including on the user's computer). At the end of the day, any "ownership" of a website boils down to intellectual property. Conceptually, you can't actually "exclude" users from your intellectual property, you can only forbid them from "using" it.

So does that mean corporations must allow everyone to "use" their intellectual property at will? Of course not. The Amendment I proposed (above) allows corporations to limit availability of their websites / media to certain classes of people. This can be as simple as a pay wall, or an express designation that the site exists to further Liberal views. If the site is not open to the public, and does not solicit content from the general public, it may censor as it wishes. Many corporations may opt to limit use of their sites / media to a certain class of users, for political reasons. But many more (via market forces) will make their sites / media available to "the public" at large, because that is where the money is. The general public (via market forces) will respond in kind by rewarding those companies with more pervasive roles in public discourse. All I'm suggesting is that once a for-profit corporation (1) "has availed the public of a medium" and (2) "hosts content from the public upon that medium," it must allow members of the public to freely express themselves on that medium to the extent permitted by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

You've indicated an unwillingness to rein in corporate censorship on grounds that Google (and similar multinational corporations) does not in fact resemble a national government. Respectfully, I disagree. Although its aims may be different, Google has vast power and influence which may potentially affect the lives of billions of people. On top of that, Google tracks locations without consent, monitors interests, monitors speech, and does all manner of surveillance activities which would make most government intelligence agencies blush. That is enough, in my view, to warrant legal protection for the people who must share this planet with the ambitious geniuses at Alphabet / Google. Case in point, if Google decided it wanted to censor Conservative speech, it conceivably could, with or without justification. I am not okay with that, and I believe it is dangerous to even allow for that possibility. It should be illegal. I am not persuaded by the argument that "it's a private company, they can do what they want" (In fact, I don't think anyone truly holds that view – they simply can't see themselves in the corporate crosshairs... yet). These corporations hold an outsized influence which is dangerous to a healthy functioning democracy, and market forces alone are sometimes insufficient to protect the democratic will of the people. Just as we recognized that "trust busting" was necessary to promote competition, I hope we recognize that reining in "Big Tech" is necessary to promote healthy public discourse.

As for "no taxation without representation," I'm not talking about taxing corporations. I'm simply talking about limiting their ability to censor the speech of natural persons in forums which are open to the public.

Cheers!
 
I guess I don't really see the point, for a few reasons.

1.) Wouldn't companies be able to carefully curate their content declarations, or make them so vague as to be completely meaningless as to be unenforceable? For example, saying ''liberal'' or ''conservative'' content is basically meaningless. If someone says they're ''conservative'' do you really know what they mean by that? Some pretty interesting conversations can be had about just what the hell that word even means, and what it's meant throughout history: from support of absolute monarchy to american libertarianism.

If a corporation assertedly limits use of its media to certain classes of people, that is enough to exempt it from this Amendment. I am fine with that. I would not want this proposed Amendment sweep up every corporation under the sun – only those that are open to the public, and which solicit content from the public.

As a practical matter, I suspect many businesses would want to open their media up to the public at large. That is, after all, where all the money is (e.g., Facebook would never have been so successful if it had limited its user base to college students). But once a corporation reaps the benefit of opening its medium to the general public, the tradeoff is that it must allow users to speak freely in a manner consistent with the First Amendment.

2.) Would companies not be able to change their declarations? If not that seems pretty Draconian, and if they could what's the point of the declaration in the first place?

Of course they can decide to "change their declarations" and thereby limit their user base. That would probably be a bad business move, but if they value the ability to censor users more than they value profit, they are free to make that choice.

3.) Wouldn't the companies who decided for themselves to be ''neutral'' be just like companies we already have? for example, voat, gab.ai, dailymotion, 4chan. It seems like the internet itself remaining neutral is a lot more important than any one service which uses the internet.

Yes. 100% correct. The only difference is that they would no longer be able to censor users for arbitrary reasons. If they want the benefit of opening themselves to "the public," they will accept what the public has to say.
 
Let me be clear (using my Obama voice now): I am not suggesting that we abolish the rights of private property owners to exclude people, the rights of private companies to generally "refuse service," or the rights of private persons to express opinions through their businesses. That would be a straw man caricature of my proposal.

I am, however, suggesting that our Constitution should protect the rights of natural persons to speak freely as against powerful associational entities. The key idea is this: sometimes the "rights" of two parties are mutually exclusive, and in that situation, someone's rights must ultimately yield. In the real world, the rights of natural persons to speak freely directly conflict with the rights of multinational corporations to censor opposing views. In other words we can't have our free and open dialogue and also have pervasive corporate censorship too. Accordingly, in the realm of internet speech, I propose that the substantive speech rights of for-profit corporate entities must submit to the substantive speech rights of natural persons. In other words, when the rights of natural persons to enjoy "freedom of speech" are in conflict with the rights of corporations to enjoy the same, the rights of the corporations must yield.

Because I have proposed a Constitutional Amendment, there is no point in arguing that it would "unconstitutional" or that it "violates the First Amendment" (the Constitution is, of course, ipso facto "Constitutional"). Notwithstanding all that, the First Amendment exists precisely because the Framers were concerned that powerful entities would censor dissidents. The Framers wanted to protect the ability of natural persons to engage in public discourse; they did not intend to protect the rights of Google to retaliate against Joe Blow for his support of Donald Trump. When the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments were ratified, the idea that "free speech has consequences" generally meant that individual persons who disagree are free to exercise their own right to free speech by voting against you, refusing to patronize your business, or excluding you from their property. Never did the Framers envision that large multinational corporations (which have only economic interests, and are generally free from human desires / needs / constraints / consequences) would be able to "deplatform" dissidents at will. The power differential between corporations and natural persons speaks volumes – they can do to you, but you cannot do to them. Consider also the fact that most "speech" these days takes place online, particularly in the realm of social media. Social media is so ingrained in our societies that one is effectively barred from active participation without it. Had the Framers confronted or foreseen the specter of pervasive corporate censorship, they surely would have acted to prevent it.

You suggested that limiting the ability of corporations to censor people online will lead to abolition of your right to exclude objectionable people from your property or business. Your concern is misplaced. First, social media sites are not perfectly analogous to "brick and mortar" property or businesses. Nobody "owns" the internet, and anyone can access it; users don't physically occupy it the way they might occupy space in a store. Someone may "own" a website, but that essentially boils down to ownership of intellectual property, not physical property. There is perhaps an argument that companies physically own the server space where data is stored, or the labor it took to create a particular site / medium, but that argument is unavailing because the data which creates any particular "room" or "page" on the internet is stored in many places (including on the user's computer). At the end of the day, any "ownership" of a website boils down to intellectual property. Conceptually, you can't actually "exclude" users from your intellectual property, you can only forbid them from "using" it.

So does that mean corporations must allow everyone to "use" their intellectual property at will? Of course not. The Amendment I proposed (above) allows corporations to limit availability of their websites / media to certain classes of people. This can be as simple as a pay wall, or an express designation that the site exists to further Liberal views. If the site is not open to the public, and does not solicit content from the general public, it may censor as it wishes. Many corporations may opt to limit use of their sites / media to a certain class of users, for political reasons. But many more (via market forces) will make their sites / media available to "the public" at large, because that is where the money is. The general public (via market forces) will respond in kind by rewarding those companies with more pervasive roles in public discourse. All I'm suggesting is that once a for-profit corporation (1) "has availed the public of a medium" and (2) "hosts content from the public upon that medium," it must allow members of the public to freely express themselves on that medium to the extent permitted by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

You've indicated an unwillingness to rein in corporate censorship on grounds that Google (and similar multinational corporations) does not in fact resemble a national government. Respectfully, I disagree. Although its aims may be different, Google has vast power and influence which may potentially affect the lives of billions of people. On top of that, Google tracks locations without consent, monitors interests, monitors speech, and does all manner of surveillance activities which would make most government intelligence agencies blush. That is enough, in my view, to warrant legal protection for the people who must share this planet with the ambitious geniuses at Alphabet / Google. Case in point, if Google decided it wanted to censor Conservative speech, it conceivably could, with or without justification. I am not okay with that, and I believe it is dangerous to even allow for that possibility. It should be illegal. I am not persuaded by the argument that "it's a private company, they can do what they want" (In fact, I don't think anyone truly holds that view – they simply can't see themselves in the corporate crosshairs... yet). These corporations hold an outsized influence which is dangerous to a healthy functioning democracy, and market forces alone are sometimes insufficient to protect the democratic will of the people. Just as we recognized that "trust busting" was necessary to promote competition, I hope we recognize that reining in "Big Tech" is necessary to promote healthy public discourse.

As for "no taxation without representation," I'm not talking about taxing corporations. I'm simply talking about limiting their ability to censor the speech of natural persons in forums which are open to the public.

Cheers!

You make a good case and I wouldn't complain if an Amendment to this effect was passed. I wouldn't support it though. I'd be more in support of decentralizing ownership when it comes to major platforms (eg. Google can't own Youtube and Facebook can't own Instagram).

The taxation comment was just me using an old slogan to get across the point that it's a questionable position to levy taxes on a business entity while curtailing its ability to promote its political views. I also don't understand how it makes sense that everyone has a right to free speech, except when they form a group and charge money for a good/service.

Oh yeah. Google can't force me to give it money or put me in jail. They are far from being a government. I have the option of ignoring them altogether. Try that with your local, state, or federal government.
 
I'd be more in support of decentralizing ownership when it comes to major platforms (eg. Google can't own Youtube and Facebook can't own Instagram).

That's another possibility. Many have suggested that corporate censorship is better addressed though the vehicle of anti-trust action. In fact, it may be the more practical option since we all know there's no way we're ever passing a Constitutional Amendment ever again (let alone this one).

I also don't understand how it makes sense that everyone has a right to free speech, except when they form a group and charge money for a good/service.

It's because those "groups" hold an outsize influence which is greater than the sum of individual voices, and because many of the constituent individuals aren't even American citizens. Among other reasons.

Google can't force me to give it money or put me in jail.

Yet.

Right now, if they so desired, they could brand your business as "hate organization," scrub it from search results, and otherwise make it impossible for you to market. Your government can't get away with doing that.
 
If a corporation assertedly limits use of its media to certain classes of people, that is enough to exempt it from this Amendment. I am fine with that. I would not want this proposed Amendment sweep up every corporation under the sun – only those that are open to the public, and which solicit content from the public.

As a practical matter, I suspect many businesses would want to open their media up to the public at large. That is, after all, where all the money is (e.g., Facebook would never have been so successful if it had limited its user base to college students). But once a corporation reaps the benefit of opening its medium to the general public, the tradeoff is that it must allow users to speak freely in a manner consistent with the First Amendment.

That's the experiment that we're currently running. Only, it seems that people don't really seem to want the unmoderated free speech absolutist services. These services already exist, and it wouldn't be so much of a problem, I think, for certain posters that Alex Jones (for example) got banned if these other platforms had the same profile as youtube.

Of course they can decide to "change their declarations" and thereby limit their user base. That would probably be a bad business move, but if they value the ability to censor users more than they value profit, they are free to make that choice.

How is this mechanism different with the amendment in place than without it?

Yes. 100% correct. The only difference is that they would no longer be able to censor users for arbitrary reasons. If they want the benefit of opening themselves to "the public," they will accept what the public has to say.

For example, let's say that I want to register yerterb.com as a ''liberal'' service, what sort of a declaration would need to be made, and how is it substantively different than just being able to set your own terms and services agreement?
 
That's the experiment that we're currently running. Only, it seems that people don't really seem to want the unmoderated free speech absolutist services. These services already exist, and it wouldn't be so much of a problem, I think, for certain posters that Alex Jones (for example) got banned if these other platforms had the same profile as youtube.

Nope. Take for instance this little app called "Gab.ai" which bills itself as a free speech social media platform, similar to Twitter or Facebook but without the partisan moderation. I'd love to download it, but I haven't been able to since Apple won't allow it in the App Store. On top of that Google banned it from their "Play Store." Now Microsoft is threatening to shaft Gab as well. Basically a handful of giant corporations colluded for the purposes of eliminating an alternative media platform altogether. Why? Because Gab apparently isn't censoring its users to Apple's / Google's / Microsoft's liking. Don't tell me that market forces are at work here.

How is this mechanism different with the amendment in place than without it?

Because the corporations must specify if their medium is limited to a certain class. If it's not, they must abide by the First Amendment. And if they pull shenanigans like the ones I referenced above, they will get their dicks chopped off. Figuratively speaking. So yeah, it's a little bit different.

For example, let's say that I want to register yerterb.com as a ''liberal'' service, what sort of a declaration would need to be made, and how is it substantively different than just being able to set your own terms and services agreement?

A conclusory declaration that your site is "liberal" would be enough to exempt you. Assuming Yerterb is a for-profit corporation, just specify in your articles of incorporation that your company exists to serve a liberal user base. But if you want to serve the public at large, you will be subject to regulation, because "the government must not allow" you to censor users (keep in mind, this basically only applies to social media companies). This is actually not such a novel proposition – companies that decide to "go public" get access to the benefit$$$ of being publicly traded on stock exchanges, but they must submit to SEC regulation. It's a trade-off, but many companies decide it's worth it.

Likewise, if you want Yerterb to be (1) open to the public and (2) benefit from the public's user-created content, then you must submit to regulation. Thankfully, the regulation is simple: don't censor anyone unless the offending speech is not protected under the First Amendment.
 
Back
Top