[CryptoPunk]

1. Because it's a violation of other people's rights to control their own private property. It's predicated on using the threat of imprisonment against people acting peacefully, which infringes upon human rights.

2. Because it's lazy and lacking credibility: it's a claim to being privy to 'the correct path for society', without showing the ability to create something of value.

The state could still tap market forces to bring about public squares that abide with its guidelines, by providing subsidies to private parties developing such platforms, in exchange for the parties entering into an irrevocable covenant that requires them to follow the state's rules.

[oefnak]

1. A company is not a person.

Also, the company did not have to go to jail, it got a fine.

[raxxorrax]

"Punks" arguing for corporate rights to ban content in the name of human rights.

I think I will take a stroll through the forest, maybe I meat a bear that plays guitar and sells refreshing lemonade. I am prepared for anything.

[CryptoPunk]

Punks don't rely on the state to force private citizens to let people use their platforms.

[CryptoPunk]

A company belongs to its shareholders. Commandeering it violates the shareholders' rights to their property.

All legal injunctions are predicated on the threat of imprisonment, even fines:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforci...

[josefx]

> A company belongs to its shareholders.

A company is generally its own legal entity, intentionally separated from its shareholders to protect them from any fallout should the company ever go bankrupt or get sued into oblivion. You can get into serious trouble if you founded a company and failed to correctly distinguish between your own and the companies property, because as far as the government is concerned you explicitly told it to make this distinction.

[CryptoPunk]

It's its own legal entity, that is owned by other people.

And there is very little privilege that incorporation grants corporations that is not entirely contractual. Limited liability for shareholders for tort is the only one I can think of, and that, in my opinion, should be repealed.

Limited liability for debt can be entirely contractual in its basis, and established by shareholders/companies operating outside of the corporate structure too, simply by stipulating that condition in any loan agreememt the business enter into with another party.

[marcel-garus]

In Germany, near the top of our most fundamental lawbook, the Grundgesetz, it says:

> §14.2 GG: Eigentum verpflichtet. Sein Gebrauch soll zugleich dem Wohle der Allgemeinheit dienen. [0]

Which roughly translates to:

> §14.2 GG: Property obliges. Its use should also serve the public good.

[0]: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_14.html

[CryptoPunk]

Any state control over private citizens can be rationalized in this way. Private property is a private creation, and the use of public resources by the individuals that create it should not be used as an excuse to deny its creators their rights over it, any more than the use of public resources by individuals should not be used to invalidate their right to free speech.