[Eddy_Viscosity2]

Free speech in terms of the first amendment is about government censorship, but in todays society with only a handful of giant media and tech companies controlling the vast majority of information flow, then free speech takes on a the second meaning about corporate or private censorship. It may not be illegal, but that doesn't mean its ok. And for the record, I do no support completely unmoderated media - that would be a nightmare. Free speech in both forms are, and will always be, very tricky things to deal with.

[ascendantlogic]

> then free speech takes on a the second meaning about corporate or private censorship

Then the government should pass laws stating that these private corporations are no longer able to moderate their own platforms as they see fit. There is no "second meaning" without concrete legal precedent.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

In effect, large corporations are like secondary governments in how their actions, policies, and decisions affect our lives. That's what the second meaning is about - its not a legal concept, but rather how things work and feel in practice.

[Jcowell]

Should it? Should free speech be extended beyond the bounds of government and if so doesn’t that contradict its original meaning by making the government restrict who should and shouldn’t provide uncensored free speech?

[HereIGoAgain]

Free speech never began with governments. The 1st is a prohibition on government interfering with the freedom of speech. That's the problem with this whole debate, most people have everything backwards. Free speech is a concept, an ideal that underpins the entire concept of a healthy, free, fair and open society.

[acallan]

> there could be stronger laws against media which contains objectively provable lies

this is a clear violation of the First Amendment, which makes it legal to publish lies.

[acallan]

> What about slander and libel laws or laws about claims made in advertisements?

Yep — here we're getting into Prior Restraint. It's both against the law to restrain free speech such as lies, but as you rightly point out, this speech can have other legal consequences.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

Well there we go, an established framework for how this could work. Legal consequences are good enough.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

What about slander and libel laws or laws about claims made in advertisements?

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

I said it was tricky. But, for example, there could be stronger laws against media which contains objectively provable lies.