> It does not make sense to apply it to someone's private property, especially when people are free to continue their speech somewhere else. The Supreme Court

> It does not make sense to apply it to someone's private property, especially when people are free to continue their speech somewhere else. The Supreme Court has held that effective bans on rights are also unconstitutional. And I think that's a fair standard to apply in a broader ethical context. You can say "go somewhere else to share your views", but if the only real places you can speak are in places you own, that's not much of a consolation. "Free speech" implies conversations where everyone can hear. It's not "free speech" to write yourself notes on your own napkin or to scream into your own pillow. I think its entirely possible to have a public discussion in a privately maintained and owned forum. And the principle of free speech would have us, as much as possible, set up free discussions where the all ideas can be heard so the best ideas can be adopted.