[kthejoker2]

This literally has nothing to do with "free speech." It is about using other people's private property to express your speech.

Consider these in degrees:

* Allowing anyone to write any message they please on someone else's face.

* Allowing anyone at any time to drive through public streets with a megaphone announcing any message they would like.

* Allowing anyone to burn a cross on someone else's private yard.

* Allowing anyone to post any political advertisement they want on your front door.

* Allowing anyone 10 minutes of airtime on a privately owned, closed circuit television station.

* Allowing anyone to post any image they please on the front page of Google.com.

Until you recognize that

1) there are other rights beyond free speech, 2) those rights often come directly into conflict with free speech, and 3) those rights are not simply superseded by free speech

We can now have a fair discussion of whose rights matter.

I don't see how anyone can argue it's not okay to be able to write any message you want on someone's face or front door without consequence, but that their website is fair game.

[koheripbal]

If you read down, you'll see that he views Freedom of Speech as a cultural norm, not merely a law that restricts congress.

...and that unpopular speech, should be broadly tolerated even on private platforms, as a matter of culture - not law.

[kthejoker2]

Using "cultural norms" seems .. odd, those are waaaay more restrictive than pure legalistic viewpoints.

I mean, when we're talking about competing cultural norms, now you're including "fire in a theater", "think of the children", "I know it when I see it", "fighting words", taboos, morals, indecency, fighting words, Popper's intolerance of intolerance, "slippery slopes", and all kinds of restrictions on speech that aren't seated in anything but "cultural norms."

Better to stick with the legal arguments.