[zfg]

It is protection by the state. It is how the state is constituted. It's what the state means and offers. It's what the state is for and what, in principle, the state does.

If the state doesn't in fact do these things then you have a different state and the constitution is just a piece of paper.

[mulmen]

> It is protection by the state.

It absolutely is not. In fact it is a restriction on the state.

The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inherent. They are not derived from the government. We have them by nature of existing. The Bill of Rights prohibits the government from infringing on these inherent rights.

[zfg]

And who in your mind maintains and upholds those rights? It's state institutions.

The judiciary is a branch of government.

You can assert rights but if you don't have those rights in practice then the assertions don't help you.

[DrillShopper]

Please read the 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.

It precisely says the government cannot limit your speech and is intentionally silent about everyone else.

[zfg]

Nowhere in your quote does it say it only applies to government. It only says that government won't make laws restricting it. It is intentionally elevating freedom of speech to a precept that is fundamental to the constitution of the state.

You have people in this thread asserting that freedom of speech is an inherent right while simultaneously supporting a corporation's ability to infringe that right and suppress speech through petty punishments.

Your main problem is that you're misconstruing the nature of freedom. Freedom isn't merely freedom from things, it's also the freedom to actually do things.

[DrillShopper]

> Nowhere in your quote does it say it only applies to government.

> It only says that government won't make laws restricting it.

These are the same thing. Further, private corporations have editorial control over what they allow in their publications or on their platforms which is also free speech. Or are you suggesting that the New York Times is required by The First Amendment to publish every letter it receives? That a website is required to leave scam comments or spam up? The no corporate owned platform can moderate in any way?

[mulmen]

The judiciary only gets involved with the first amendment if the executive or congress overstep their bounds.

If a private music venue asks someone to leave that is not a first amendment issue.

[zfg]

Nope. Here's a corporation that tried to restrict speech and failed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

[longdustytrail]

An interesting precedent for sure but it’s worth noting that a company tried and failed to use this precedent to argue that spam filtering is a violation of the first amendment