[paulcole]

It is definitely a free speech issue but not in the legal and constitutional sense that you're thinking of.

Regardless of the situation you're in, you have the ability to say, "I should have the right to free speech in this situation." Whether this belief will be validated in the reality of the situation is an entirely different matter.

[smcl]

On the contrary, that is exactly the sense I was thinking of. My point was that considering this in terms of an erosion of your free speech doesn't make sense because there's no expectation of free speech in places like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc. There is an expectation that as long as you adhere to TOS you'll be allowed to continue to use a platform, however.

I just thought it was a mistake in this case to get into a broader debate about free speech online, what should be allowed, how it needs to account for various countries' conflicting laws, etc. Because that's a huge issue, it's probably not what was intended by the original commenter and we have a much more narrow and clearly defined issue we can focus on (being kicked off despite adhering to TOS).

[denton-scratch]

> I should have the right to free speech

That's a legitimate opinion.

I am of the view that rights are things that are granted by some authority, not something you acquire by simply existing. I envy the USA their constitutional protections on speech. But unless Google has made a grant of free speech rights on their platform, no such rights exist.

[MereInterest]

> I am of the view that rights are things that are granted by some authority, not something you acquire by simply existing.

That's an interesting view, and not one that is supported by the US Constitution.

> First Amendment: 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.

This doesn't state that either Congress or the Constitution is granting the freedom of speech, or the right to assemble peacably, but rather states that Congress may not make a law that abridges those rights. The right

> Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again, the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is something that exists before the Constitution. It isn't something that is granted by the Constitution, but a pre-existing right that may not be violated.

> Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is the most direct counter-argument, that rights exist outside of the enumerated rights. That some rights are explicitly enumerated may not be used to imply that those are the only rights that exist. If the Constitution and authorities derived from the Constitution were the source of rights, then there couldn't be rights that exist outside of them. But instead, the Constitution states that there exist rights outside of those mentioned, so they must have been pre-existing rights.

[denton-scratch]

The US Constitution says those things, no doubt. But I'm not a USAian. Similar claims appear in the UN and European declarations of Human Rights. Whatever those documents say, I just don't think rights are things that exist objectively, independent of their declaration in some document.

[paulcole]

yes, had you read/quoted my entire comment you'd realize that your point is exactly equivalent to my point