>Sure, you allow them to speak, in that you don't respond to that speech with violence or prosecution. But you don't have to make room for it. >"Sit down, and

>Sure, you allow them to speak, in that you don't respond to that speech with violence or prosecution. But you don't have to make room for it. >"Sit down, and don't open your mouth again while I'm here." so they don't allow him to speak? I don't think you're proving the point you're trying to prove. >What that means, though, is that if there are sentiments so odious (and in some cases, literally dangerous, but not illegal) that our free society doesn't think it's appropriate to support a venue for their discussion, it's up to that society writ large, not government, to limit that discussion. There is nothing wrong with fostering a societal sense that there is no room in our world for the kind of shit that Kiwi Farms spewed, even if it is legal. There is nothing wrong with expecting large companies to live up to that standard. 300 years ago, the "odious shit that society should limit" would be anything blasphemous. 200 years ago, it would be calls to allow black people in public office. 100 years ago, it would be communism. 80 years ago, it would be gay rights. Can you explain to me exactly who determines which free speech is odious and which isn't, and when did we perfect morality, so that no controversial discussion should be allowed?