38 ms·

This also of course raises the question of what the rights of the audience are in terms of their choice to listen or not. This becomes especially complicated wi

This also of course raises the question of what the rights of the audience are in terms of their choice to listen or not. This becomes especially complicated with situations like the internet (where the barriers to engaging in conversation with other people are lower), or on property which isn't a completely open public forum all the time. Ex. free speech rights might be restricted in a library, even though it's government property, where that interferes with the ability of other people to use it.

eesmith 9y ago
"Ex. free speech rights might be restricted in a library" These are "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time%2c+Place%2c+and+Manner+Restrictions http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Time%2c+Place%... . These are pretty well understood. You also don't have the right to go through a neighborhood at 2am with a bullhorn talking about your political platform in the upcoming election. What's at issue is that most internet sites are privately held, and such things as "free speech", which is a prohibition on government interference, have no real meaning. Groups, including companies, also have the right of association, and that includes the right to kick people out. The government has some ability to restrict that right of association, as with the various civil rights protections regarding businesses. However, none of that analysis applies to, for example, one's ability to post videos to YouTube. In the US, the government can't even prohibit private clubs from discriminating on basis of race.