Stop. >Compelling platforms to host vulgar trash they disagree with & want nothing to do with is compelled speech. No. It's compelling them to be a platform.

Stop. >Compelling platforms to host vulgar trash they disagree with & want nothing to do with is compelled speech. No. It's compelling them to be a platform. Discretion is tge realm of publishers. If you want to be a publisher, that's cool. You can do that. No safe harbor though. >There's something extremely blind cruel & foul about these ongoing attempts to see only the sovereign individuals rights as having any stake, as not regarding other entities rights to make their own choices as also part of the balance. The Constitution was written for the People, not the legal fictions. Also, if all are equal before the law, we have a problem, because it is clear the judiciary and legislature have lost their way in that regard, because clearly legal fictions tend to enjoy an exaggerated influence in the legislative landscape. >We have to allow a diversity of sites... Again, publishing, three houses --> way >This is a market problem, being exploited & converted into a legal attack, by a segment the small, loud, shouting class. Sounds like the law is doing it's job, providing a stopgap against popular organized behavior that unduly effects a minority! It just doesn't happen to be a minority you're a particular fan of. >Sharing your views has always been a privilege, Stop. No, it has been a right, enshrined in both freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. It's just that by technical accident, the ability of people to access printing presses has been more easily achieved. I'm not about to tgrow out the baby with the bathwater though. The same arguments about "privileges" are the same ones law enforcement made about driving and travel that created the surveillance nightmare that is our Driver's licensure framework. I will not see the same treatment applied to speech.