> The person I was responding to was equating the legality of Apple's speech suppression with it's acceptability. We weren't discussing the legality of Infowars

> The person I was responding to was equating the legality of Apple's speech suppression with it's acceptability. We weren't discussing the legality of Infowars' speech. Well, then, to clarify on my part, I believe it's perfectly acceptable for Apple to say they want no part in some form of speech. It's perfectly legal since the American 1st amendment only binds the government. Apple really only has the power that it has convinced consumers and shareholders to willingly given it (begrudgingly or not), aside from whatever power is granted by incorporation. I don't have to agree with their decision (in this case, I do). If they were to drop some musical artist I really like (say, Peter Gabriel) I would probably feel differently, but that wouldn't make me any more right, just mad.