[394549]

> As a reminder to everyone: the constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech means that the _government_ cannot censor any views (outside of certain exceptions for threatening language, and the like). It does not mean that a private entity has to enable speech that they find objectionable.

When the First Amendment was written, ~240 years ago, the government was the only conceivable entity with enough power to censor (besides a state church, but the amendment also banned those).

Now there are private entities with comparable censorship power to governments (examples: Google, backbone providers, cell phone carriers). For the sake of the people's natural right of free expression, the interpretation that backs your "reminder" may be obsolete, and anti-censorship law may need to be made to apply to them.

[dagenix]

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please interpret the word "Congress" to mean something other than the government. I'm not arguing what it should say, but what it does say. And what it does say is pretty clear.

[394549]

> Please interpret the word "Congress" to mean something other than the government. I'm not arguing what it should say, but what it does say. And what it does say is pretty clear.

That's neither here nor there. I wasn't making an originalist textual argument in my comment, but actually the opposite. The modern world, with such powerful "private" entities that can engage in censorship, doesn't map very well onto the world of the founders in many ways. Therefore, to preserve the original effect and intent of the First Amendment, the law perhaps needs to be modified.