[Airsinner]

The whole philosophical backing of both "freedom of speech" and "innocent until proven guilty" is that the government doesn't itself have civil rights, only the rights explicitly outlined to it in the founding documents of that government (e.g. US Constitution).

Once you venture into private parties evaluating other private parties, you encounter a collision of rights. It's still freedom of speech and association to not want to do business with certain people, and as long as those certain people aren't of a protected class, this falls well within the moral concepts of both free speech and presumption of innocence.

[ClumsyPilot]

> government doesn't itself have civil rights

Neither do corporations. This is easy to demonstrate. Imagine you refuse to talk to Trump supporters - most people would say that's your right.

> It's still freedom of speech and association to not want to do business with certain people

imagine the outrage if Tomorrow YouTube deletes accounts for anyone that supported Trump

[WendyTheWillow]

Corporations are owned by people who do have civil rights.

[jonny_eh]

Let's go more extreme. Tech companies are free to not host Nazi content. The US govt is NOT free to lock someone up for being a Nazi. That's the power of the 1st amendment.

[ClumsyPilot]

Why can I never find you 'Corporations are people' advocates when corporate manslaighter is being discussed, for example when Boeing killed 200 people with a faulty plane?

[jonny_eh]

Corporations are not people. Congress could pass laws saying that tech must host Nazi content. But they haven't.