Free speech means not being censored by government.
Private entities have the right to censor because the conveyance method is theirs. They may choose for it to be open, or not.
Just like FR. The ownership/moderators frequently remove posts and threads for a variety of reasons. It is their right. WE are guests here.
If government funding is involved then private companies banning free speech are de facto agents of the government.
Wrong.
The First Amendment protects you from being censored by government.
But free speech and censorship are broader concepts than the First Amendment.
Private entities can censor. And a few oligarchs who own most of media can effectively suppress free speech. And that's not good.
I know libertarians love to repeat the mantra "Only government can censor." But just because libertarian have been saying that for decades, doesn't make it so.
Private entities have the right to censor because the conveyance method is theirs. They may choose for it to be open, or not.
—
True...that is until the government uses some means to force the private entities to censor (see Twitter).
But what if private entities which convey comment deemed by the Government to be "disinformation" are put out of business by lawfare and Alphabet Soup Agency harassment ?
This is what our fascist Federal Government is doing now.
“It is their right. WE are guests here.”
I think the model for privately owned platforms is X (Twitter). This will hurt substack, because it shows that lobbying from one group can suppress another.
FR could have (and still could) implemented the same “Free Speech” resolve as Elon Musk did and would be a more significant platform for free-speech expression if it did.
I am not knocking any private entity that decides to run it’s operations on whatever basis they choose. I just think taking a stand on free-speech is good business. FR could and (in my opinion should) do this - but will do as it wishes as it should be allowed to do. But FR suffers censorship and has suffered censorship in the past and present.
So Substack made a big mistake. It is an existential one.
It’s up to them to navigate it, and its up to writers and subscribers to decide if they wish to continue on a platform that may censor you if enough (of the right) people complain.
Given recent history if you believe government wasn’t involved in this you are too naive to live in this world.
Okay, but what if the government pushes private entities to censor a la the Twitter Files?