US to probe Big Tech on 'stifling' free speech

"Social media platforms have the right to determine what types of legal speech they will permit on their platforms," Castro told AFP.


"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Is there any limit on that?

Protected classes under the US Constitution as interpreted by the courts limits it for sure, but why isn't free political speech also likewise protected in commercial facilities open to the public? Why does free political speech disappear the moment one crosses into a commercial facility open to the public?

I'm not talking about loud talking that disturbs others. I'm talking about regular speech that happens to be of a political nature: Progressives conversationally talking progressive politics in an anti-progressive commercial establishment or the reverse. Why should a commercial facility be able to limit that form of speech?

I can think of reasons, but the major platforms are too utility like to allow them to act like the corner store. Those platforms provide so much exposure to some ideologies over others that it sets those platforms up as national gatekeepers. The corner store typically can't on its own legally stop the talk right outside it's doors. The national platforms can alter our form of government much more easily. With such coverage should come equivalent strings, rules, regulations.

Simply breaking them up probably wouldn't work. Turning them into nationalized communications-utilities would work if the plutocrats weren't to prevent it.

  • Subscribe
  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.