Sure, but the point is that judgement should be made by democratic systems of justice, not corporations motivated primarily by profit. And the law can be used t

Sure, but the point is that judgement should be made by democratic systems of justice, not corporations motivated primarily by profit. And the law can be used to punish people who seek to inflict suffering with their speech. The threshold may be higher than you may prefer, but it does exist. Otherwise, the rules of censorship are going to be made to maximize profit for the censors, not work on society's best interest. In other words, what I'm saying is less whether we should or shouldn't alter our rules on free speech. If we want to restrict or repeal the first Amendment, we have a process to do that democratically. What I am pointing out with this second comment is that letting corporations censor us is not saying, "we can hash it out." It's saying, "we can let corporations hash it out, and keep our fingers crossed that they're acting in our best interest."