>Your free speech protections are only protected _from_ the _government_. This is a common argument but it is simply not true. Someone cannot tape your mouth s

>Your free speech protections are only protected _from_ the _government_. This is a common argument but it is simply not true. Someone cannot tape your mouth shut because they aren't the government. The government (at least the US government) is saddled with the responsibility to protect your rights, even from other entities. I cannot search your house just because I'm not a cop. What good is a government if it only protects your rights from being infringed by itself? With regard to the particular topic being discussed, that is, a private entity moderating speech on its own property, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama is very directly applicable, and more specific to the situation itself. The only sticking point to be hashed out might be "terms of service" which might constitute a private agreement and this precedent may not directly apply. Of course we shall see, because I'm willing to bet these cases will be brought to court within the next 5 years.