Freedom of speech for individual is a protected right and should remain so. Freedom to censor for state-like corporations is not a protected right and should remain so.
Website owners do not have to platform content, that is basic first amendment and property rights principles. Under your proposal, who polices the corporate decisions about hosting speech?
@@markn866 Hosting is not an issue, censoring is. Everything is circling back to section 230, where media conglomerates are allowed to eat their cake and have it too.
Free speach is not a law for organization, its for the individual. Netchoice is not accepting facts of organization verse individual rights, there is a difference.
I really enjoyed this!
Thanks for this interview and update with Paul Taske. Looking forward to more.
An organization should not ban together speech, speech is an individiual right, has nothing to do with organization.
Paul has an interesting smile
Freedom of speech for individual is a protected right and should remain so. Freedom to censor for state-like corporations is not a protected right and should remain so.
Website owners do not have to platform content, that is basic first amendment and property rights principles. Under your proposal, who polices the corporate decisions about hosting speech?
@@markn866 Hosting is not an issue, censoring is. Everything is circling back to section 230, where media conglomerates are allowed to eat their cake and have it too.
Free speach is not a law for organization, its for the individual. Netchoice is not accepting facts of organization verse individual rights, there is a difference.