You've entirely missed my point: sorry if I was unclear. > You can't have protected free speech without the laws that protect it. The claim the parent commen

You've entirely missed my point: sorry if I was unclear. > You can't have protected free speech without the laws that protect it. The claim the parent comment was rebutting was "private platforms can and should be arbiters of permissible speech". It's entirely consistent to think that (eg) Facebook shouldn't pick and choose what you're allowed to say on its platform, without thinking that the government should enforce their neutrality. Again... You may disagree, but that claim need not have anything to do with government. Part of the confusion here may be that you're interpreting his comment as requiring the government to enforce said neutrality, and I'm not: specifically because the statement being argued against includes the notion that Facebook should be an arbiter of acceptable speech. And fwiw, I think the xkcd comic is as stupid as the parent comment who posted it does.