> "almost always" is not a guarantee of free speech. There is no such guarantee with respect to someone else's private property. > What is "very rare" today c

> "almost always" is not a guarantee of free speech. There is no such guarantee with respect to someone else's private property. > What is "very rare" today can become "more common" tomorrow if there aren't strong legal protections. Yes, that's the slippery slope fallacy. I could make a similarly flawed argument in reverse, e.g. allowing Nazi propaganda to flourish unchecked is what lead to the rise of Hitler, so we should make Nazi ideas illegal before the acceptance of nazi ideas in wider society becomes "more common". Just to be clear, I am not actually arguing this position, only demonstrating why this reasoning is fallacious. Simply pointing to the existence of a rare event is not evidence that it will become more common. > My ISP should not be able to disconnect me from the internet on the basis of speech I agree, but only because ISPs control a shared, finite, public resource (the physical ISP lines, paid for in large part by the tax-payer). > server host should be the same No they shouldn't because they're not at all the same.