> This 'argument' comes about because everyone's forgotten about why it is that we don't want government to infringe upon certain rights. I think the argument

> This 'argument' comes about because everyone's forgotten about why it is that we don't want government to infringe upon certain rights. I think the argument comes about because it’s first amendment case law with plenty of Supreme Court opinions. What’s ignored is the flip side, that even governments (meaning federal, state, county, city, etc…) can regulate speech. But let’s pretend that the case law was different and it were somehow unconstitutional for businesses to make rules that restricted your speech. I have never heard a proposed legal framework for how that might work. If you have a brick and mortar and ask me to wear a mask, then fuck you and your rules I’m entitled to go into your store without a mask? And yes, wearing a mask or not is speech. Or what if I want to come to your store with a bullhorn and preach, you can’t remove me? Are your store hours a violation of my speech because I want to appear and protest in your store in the middle of the night when you are closed? These are not extreme examples, there are cases with similar facts which SCOTUS has dealt with when it is government and not private business with similar rules. Is Joe Rogan violating my free speech because I can’t go on his podcast when I want? If you have a website, can I sue you for not hosting my content on your website when/where I want? It just becomes a exercise in saying “I know it when I see it” and Twitter can’t moderate user content on its own platform but the law will not be applied equally to all businesses. The aim of the law should be to remove those kinds of discretionary standards in favor of plain letter law with bright line rules.