| Aaron Swartz's last interview is really apropos. [1] He discusses how speech has changed and why we should be concerned over private companies' suppressive actions now rather than just governments. Also, those arguing that governmental assertions of free speech rights only apply to government actions are not familiar with the relevant case law in the US. [2] Similarly, those claiming that censorship can only be done by state actors are using an incredibly idiosyncratic definition that basically anyone other than a hardcore libertarian would disagree with. [3][4][5] Say it is the 1980s and a college newspaper prints something that upsets someone. They then steal and destroy all copies of that issue once they are printed. How is this action by a non-state actor different enough to be put in another category? Scott Alexander also has a good read on these issues. [6] [1] http://www.wired.com/2013/04/aaron-swartz-interview/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship [4] https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship [5] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Censorship [6] http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/22/freedom-on-the-centrali... |
Note that that ruling does not establish that the first amendment provides the protection of free speech from a private company. It ruled that the California constitution did so, and was in fact allowed to expand upon the rights provided by the US constitution.