The rats of VCT Boz, MisterV, REDietz, UNKewlJ

[accountinquestion]

Actually, there is no free speech at all in private businesses. You can eject/trespass someone because you simply don't like them.

The only exception comes from federally protected discrimination categories. You cannot kick someone out of your business because they're black, gay, Jewish, female, trans, etc. Age is a bit more tricky (for example, a nightclub might be able to defend only letting in young and attractive people), but a place like a casino could never kick you out simply for being too old.

Speech is also not protected in private businesses. If I walk into a business owned by a left wing Democrat, and start telling people why they should vote for Trump, the owner can legally kick me out, even if I'm not creating a disturbance, and even if the people I'm talking to are happy to listen.

Seedvalue is partially correct with the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example. It's true that it is NOT expressly illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. For example, if there's an actual fire, it is legal to do so. You also can yell "fire" if you have good reason to believe there might be a fire, even if it turns out you're wrong or misunderstood something. The other problem with the "yelling fire in a theater" example is that it doesn't apply to free speech, since free speech never exists in a private business, which a theater would usually be.

A better example would be the inability to yell "he's got a bomb!" in a crowded gathering in a public space outdoors. If there is no bomb, and you have no good reason to believe there's a bomb, you could be charged with disorderly conduct.

There is free speech. People can eject you yes, but you are free to say what you wish. You will not be arrested for what you say unless it is vulgar or deemed disorderly conduct.

These are 2 separate issues.

Freedom of speech in relation to America is strictly that the government doesn't tell people what they can and can't say. THe modern "conservative" seems to have this completely flipped. They seem to think Twitter should be forced to publish everything.

You're free to speak you're just not free to remain on someone's property.

This new take on "free speech" is really a peeve of mine.

The free speech that I am used to hearing about it the same freedom of speech that people sue government officials (cops) over. Government employees are largely indemnified to lawsuits but under certain circumstances if they violate your free speech (typically freedom of press) then they can be sued for breaking your Constitutional rights. Basically "freedom of speech" just means the government can't tell us what we can and can't say. Nothing more. (in my world).

Conservatives don't believe X should publish everything. They demand that conservative opinion not be censored while wide open progressive opinion goes uncensored. It was a violation of freedom of speech for them to do that. And the government had no business making the old guard at Twitter censor conservative speech.

That what gets me about you libs. You ignore the corruption of the left.

If it is a "violation" then we're talking about a law. The government doesn't force anyone to publish anything that they don't want to publish. That is the publisher's freedom to do so.

You can wrap it up in nonsense and call it freedom of speech and you're not wrong. You're just not speaking from the perspective of the Constitution. You're complaining about Twitter's policies/actions. 2 totally different things.

The government employee who requested the censoring (don't recall details) is very distasteful. I don't disagree with the right complaing and being upset but unless the government person has some form of executive power it still isn't a violation of constitutionally protected speech.

When I see "freedom of speech" I think of it from the traditional Constitutional approach.

You think of it from the perspective of being on the losing side of a private entity doing what they wish.

Thats it. Nothing more to it.