[WarOnPrivacy]

> It's in our interest to safeguard and preserve rights that protect our speech.

In this context, 'our' includes people who (I fervently believe) use their speech to make the world a worse place. Because that's what it means.

It also means that I do not have to carry, parrot, amplify or provide a space for their speech.

[15457345234]

> It also means that I do not have to carry, parrot, amplify or provide a space for their speech.

You don't, if you're a private individual, but if you're a huge company that provides a space that's become a de-facto public square then you do, because if you don't, you're affecting freedom of speech in a meaningful way by providing everyone apart from a certain few individuals with a giant megaphone, pushing up the background noise level.

To clarify: Twitter and FB are de-facto public squares, this is fact.

Free speech includes the freedom to be heard, and giving everyone a vuvuzela apart from a few prevents those people from having the freedom to be heard.

Of course - if you're such a company - you also have the freedom to not do business at all. Which would probably be better.

[vacuity]

Freedom comes with a cost, but using a bludgeon like the US Supreme Court to outlaw "bad speech" today may have severe repercussions tomorrow. We should look for other solutions. Social solutions for social problems.