3 ms·

I disagree. It makes big difference weather its government or somebody else. Government has too much power(guns) so it must be checked, and strict rules on wha

I disagree. It makes big difference weather its government or somebody else. Government has too much power(guns) so it must be checked, and strict rules on what they can and can't do established. On the other hand private entities, should be allowed to say for them self what you can or can't do with their equipment (work PC's, phones) and on their premises (digital and physical: homes, offices, blogs, forums, ... ). This is fundamental for private ownership to have any meaning. And if you don't like rules that this private entity has established you can go elsewhere. (anti monopoly law's should ensure you have that option ; but they are not always perfect or applied) So freedom of speech should only apply to governments.

lmm 12y ago
In practice these days we have a lot more choice of government (there are dozens of reasonable countries you can move to without changing your lifestyle too much) than of particular corporations (avoiding apple, google and microsoft would involve substantial changes to most people's lifes). Ownership doesn't have to be absolute to have meaning. You've always been forbidden from using your property in illegal ways (e.g. just because you own a knife doesn't mean you have the right to stab someone with it; just because you own a field doesn't mean you're allowed to bury toxic waste there).