[Grustaf]

I don't agree with his alarmism and think it was stupid to send it, but why would it be regulated?

I think this is very different from Facebook or Twitter skew feeds in favour of some political cause.

First of all they are essentially public utilities, they shouldn't regulate speech as long as it's legal.

Secondly they do it without people's knowledge. David Barret's embarrassing email is completely honest and open.

[ahpearce]

Seems like a lot of people screaming about this sort of thing are the same people that support Citizens United. I don't see how they're much different. Free speech is free speech, whether or not you have access to an email list of 10m.

[rektide]

> First of all they are essentially public utilities, they shouldn't regulate speech as long as it's legal.

Hard no. There is no legal nor moral basis for this. Absolutely not.

[Grustaf]

There is no legal basis for them NOT to censor? What does that mean?

[rektide]

They are not utilities in any way. They are private entities.

They can control speech however they want in their realm. If they want to censor, it's completely in their right.