[FussyZeus]

> (inb4 1st amendment is only for the gov - that is a selective truth. the principles of free speech exist outside of government.)

You say this as if it isn't a perfectly valid point. You have the right guaranteed by law to express an opinion. No one, no matter what size corporation or platform, is expected to give you a podium from which to do so.

More to the point, freedom of speech has never been an absolute, not in the way most extremist activists would have you believe. There has always been exceptions, but the common theme of them is incitement, either incitement of panic that endangers safety (yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre), incitement of hatred against a group of people, or incitement of a riot, on and on. There are all kinds of ways the Government limits your speech.

Since your use of Facebook is effectively using their network to promote your speech, Facebook is basically speaking for you to a certain degree, that means Facebook has a vested interest to not speak hateful nonsense so it by itself does not become the subject of either lawsuits from the Government or public outcry, the latter of which has already happened, the former entirely in the scope of possibilities if they continue to act like the typical tech bro and try not to take sides in the name of "Free Speech" a.k.a maximum audience numbers.

[rout39574]

> [...] (yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre) [...]

Please read up on this concept. It does not mean what you think, and is so frequently voiced as part of a case advocating restrictions on speech, it's become something of a hot-button topic.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...

Money quote:

  After Holmes' opinions in the Schenck trilogy, the law of the United States 
  was this: you could be convicted and sentenced to prison under the Espionage
  Act if you criticized the war, or conscription, in a way that "obstructed" 
  conscription, which might mean as little as convincing people to write and 
  march and petition against it. This is the context of the "fire in a theater" 
  quote that people so love to brandish to justify censorship.

So if you think war protesters should be jailed, then you've found your precedent; carry on. But if you think that notion is heinous, you might want to think again about your example.

You might even want to reconsider your position.

[FussyZeus]

I think protesters of any stripe that turn violent should be arrested. I have zero problem with peaceful protesters.

[brandonmenc]

> No one, no matter what size corporation or platform, is expected to give you a podium from which to do so.

The intersection of people arguing that ISPs are common carriers and also that corporations can deny you a platform.

[sqeaky]

That intersection sounds like hypocrisy until you think about how being a common carrier is a government rule and it really is the government that needs to restrained to prevent censorship.

I definitely accept the need for that intersection for the USA at this point.