> Restraining that liberty to compel those who own mechanisms of communication to be neutral rather than applying their own discretion is in tension with that i

> Restraining that liberty to compel those who own mechanisms of communication to be neutral rather than applying their own discretion is in tension with that ideal. I didn't interpret the comment in question as claiming that the government should be compelling open speech. He disagreed with the quote "private platforms can and should be arbiters of permissible speech". I too vehemently disagree with this idea, but that doesn't mean I believe that the govt should enforce their neutrality. I agree that the bar for govt action compelling speech is very high and don't think that this meets it. I just consider it an ethical imperative for Facebook et al to reject the idea that they should be an arbiter of permissible speech.