3 ms·
It's not that simple. Certain corporate interests have the means to restrict content. This had been an issue for a long time. I'd use the example of the MPAA. T
by P_I_Staker 8y ago
It's not that simple. Certain corporate interests have the means to restrict content. This had been an issue for a long time. I'd use the example of the MPAA. They've been successful at shutting out gay and female sexuality from film. However, they're an optional, private organization deciding what happens in their house. Not defending OP or his terrible analogy, but I never bought the "my house, my rules" argument.
- Bjartr 8y ago> They've been successful at shutting out gay and female sexuality from film. I don't agree with Hollywood's choices, but for the purpose of this discussion, those groups have been shut out from a market, not a medium. The right to free speech acknowledged by the constitution protects your voice, not your audience. Now, perhaps in light of the impact of corporations on public discourse there should be some kind of new protection put into place to stop society from being harmed by that impact, but that's something new and different from what "free speech" has been so far and it would be less confusing and more effectively communicated if that distinction were made clear.