> You seem to still be confusing the concept of free speech with the legal enshrinement as such. I don't think so. I focused on the legal side because I though

> You seem to still be confusing the concept of free speech with the legal enshrinement as such. I don't think so. I focused on the legal side because I thought others were too, but that doesn't mean I'm confused. The comments in this thread basically said "twitter is infringing on my right to free speech". I don't believe that's the case, morally or otherwise. I think if twitter came to my house and held their hand over my mouth, or put up barriers to stop people from coming within earshot of me, or petitioning my ISP to take away my network connection so I can't post my opinions anywhere, then morally that's wrong. But twitter refusing to let me post on their site? I don't think that's morally wrong at all. If you publish a newsletter for your family, is it morally wrong to exclude what I want to tell your family from it? What if it's for your school? What if it's for the whole country? Until twitter (or any non-governmental entity) is bought and owned by the public, it has no moral obligation to give every single person air time who wants it (in my opinion).