Everyone you listed there has the right to refuse service. The only exception is life saving at medical. The simple fact of the matter is all of these companies have acted within their rights and if Jones don’t like it he can work with the entire rest of the internet having been cut off only from a small corner. Really, everybody needs to get over it. They’re wrong. And frankly, they don’t want to be right. If these companies can be forced to keep people then ALL the internet companies (include FR) have to keep everybody.
You are correct that they can ban.....but not for race, color or religion.
As for banning for political affiliation, I don’t think that horse has been buried. I suspect that there will eventually be court cases resolving that question.
Jones might be obnoxious but the fact is that is not why he is banned because there are persons more obnoxious who have not been banned.
And then you say stuff like this.
No. Freedom of speech is something that needs to transcend the "property rights" of companies that carry communications. We need to make that a particular exception to "property rights" because to do otherwise would have a seriously bad consequence to our system of governance.
I argue that our system of governance requires freedom of speech, and that means freedom of speech anywhere the public gather.
The Digital frontier is now the modern commons, and it must be treated as such.
If they will not respect our right to freedom of speech, than we should NOT respect their property rights to control such communications infrastructure. It should be imminent domained for the good of the Nation.
So you won’t mind if your phone company or email provider monitors what you say and blocks anything that might offend the average Berkeley professor? They too are private companies, you know.
UPS and Fedex opening your mail and packages to make sure they approve the political implications of the contents? Any problem with that?
If you’re smart you’ll respond that all those companies have a measure of legal protection as common carriers, meaning they generally aren’t responsible for user content, and therefore they have no legal basis for censoring user content.
On the other hand, if a publisher puts out a book with illegal content such as classified information or kiddie porn, it’s presumed the publisher had pre-emptive editorial control over the content and is legally responsible.
If Facebook and Youtube and the others want to be publishers instead of common carriers, so be it, but that makes them responsible for every jot and tittle of the content on their platforms. May a horde of barracuda lawyers descend on them and strip their bones clean, for in their blind hate they have exposed an undefended flank.