First of all, it is a mistake to couch the issue as "newsworthiness." It's not about whether or not speech is newsworthy. It's about whether or not to allow a p

First of all, it is a mistake to couch the issue as "newsworthiness." It's not about whether or not speech is newsworthy. It's about whether or not to allow a post to be openly displayed and disseminated - even to non-subscribers of the poster - without a disclaimer. The current argument is not whether speech should be quashed; it's about whether it should be annotated, disseminated and/or amplified. Even if the question were around newsworthiness - which, I emphasize, it isn't -- publishers make decisions all the time as to what is newsworthy and what isn't. Someone has to decide what goes on the front page or how to order stories, whether it be in the form of a newspaper, a TV show, or what's above the fold on a website. The golden rule when it comes to private property -- which Facebook is -- is "my house, my rules." Mark Zuckerberg, with a complicit Facebook board, has made it abundantly clear whose house it is. He can -- and has -- set whatever rules he wants, subject to the law. At this point, he has made it clear that his rules are to maximize dissemination of the President's communication even at the expense of other legitimate concerns. And it is legitimate to take a contrary position on what those rules should be.