> That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech. We do that, and have since 1976. Any cable provider in a city

> That's like saying television networks are required to give you a show for your free speech. We do that, and have since 1976. Any cable provider in a city with more than 3500 residents is required to put up 4 public access channels and studios and allow the public to use them and broadcast on them. > Social networks are private companies built for profit. To what extent do current laws provide exclusions for them and their business model? Do we deserve something in return for that? > Hell, you can't even post a nipple on Facebook. Precedent exists here as well. Free public speech does not include broadcasting of materials of a prurient interest at any time. This is separate from the "seven dirty words" which are generally excluded outside of the 'watershed' which is typically 10pm to 6am in most cities. I'm fairly libertarian, so I'm uncomfortable with the question, but there has to be some objective method of determining the extent to which "internet domains" are to be considered "leased from the public" the way we do broadcast licenses. We've already seen certain websites with particularly vile, but legally protected, points of view have their domains taken away from them. If speech can be so easily marginalized, doesn't the public have some interest in claiming domain over some of these seemingly "private" systems?