> This case was about a "company town", where there was very much a blending of public and private. With the pervasiveness of regulation in modern United State

> This case was about a "company town", where there was very much a blending of public and private. With the pervasiveness of regulation in modern United States, pretty much everything worth mentioning now is "a blending of public and private". Any business has restrictions of how it can hire and choose their clientele. A person with minarchist political bent could consider this wrong but it is undeniably the reality today. > You can probably guess by the fact that we still use spam filters how that case came out. I don't think this decision means what you think it means. Of course, AOL was found to be right to block spam. But was it because spam is repugnant, not because AOL rights are absolute. Consider what would happen if AOL blocked communications by a competitor, or say political speech by a popular group? I can not guarantee it, but I ascribe very high probability to the outcome being very different. If so, the conclusion is not that the provider can do whatever they want, but they can do whatever they want as long as they serve public interest. Which means, the current politics defines what they can do and what they can't.