[CaptArmchair]

That's not how "free speech" works. That right isn't violated by privacy protection laws.

Free speech states that a state isn't going to prosecute you directly for whatever you may say. But that doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of what you're saying.

Privacy protection simply states that any legal person who feels that your actions violated the consent they gave, is free to sue you via the legal system for compensation for damages incurred. Which has little if anything to do with free speech.

If a telco uses the "free speech" argument, they essentially argue "we're a media company and we are accountable for what we publish".

If we're discussing media companies, it's interesting to note that these pull the "freedom of press" card to defend divulging person or confidential information in news outlets.

At this point, the entire discussion becomes rather silly semantics.

Interestingly, many EU countries also have "secrecy of correspondence" enshrined as a fundamental principle into their constitutions. The U.S. does not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secrecy_of_correspondence

[bluGill]

The US has the ninth amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_... which is the out for anything the founders didn't think of. (There is a massive amount of controversy around this, Wikipedia just scratches the surface)

[SkyBelow]

>Free speech states that a state isn't going to prosecute you directly for whatever you may say. But that doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of what you're saying.

If you are punished by the government for what you say, are you not being prosecuted by the government for what you say? If we say that all one needs to do to be punished for saying the wrong thing is to enter into an agreement with another person, what is to stop Facebook from adding something to its EULA saying by using the services you are agreeing to not say anything out of line with what Facebook wishes?

It seems like the end result of this rationale is that we allow the government to enforce private agreements that compromise speech. Effectively meaning you can sign away your First Amendment rights.

The whole "doesn't mean you are free from the consequences of what you're saying" is meant in respect to how other people are treating you, not how the government is treating you (regardless if it is on behalf of another person).