The first amendment only applies to the government making rules restricting speech.
Reddit is privately owned and run, so they get to make whatever rules they want.
Reddit is privately owned and run, so they get to make whatever rules they want.
If I was the owner of an ISP, and just for this exercise assume that I am providing my services in an area where there is at least one competitor (so I don't have a monopoly). And as a human being, I disliked certain topics; for this example, the topics are radical Islam websites, pornography sites and cat pictures.
Now the question; As I am the owner of a private company, am I entitled to block access to all the sites that show pictures of Bin Laden, boobs or kitties?
I might be sued by site owners and some of my clients... but isn't this situation similar to the way some cable network can choose to broadcast certain channels and not others?
I am all in favor for free access to information, and against censure, even when I might dislike certain topics. But I can only see a blurry line between people's right to access something and the owner of a network to block said access.
There's more to free speech than one country's constitution. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
danjoc said that freedom of speech is only for those who own the press. zdw replied and said Reddit is privately owned and can do whatever they want. I presume that danjoc interpreted "privately owned" as an instance of "those who own the press", which does not seem to be a stretch at all.
Do you still not see it?
That said, Reddit didn't ban this subreddit for being alt-right, so the point is fairly moot.
Being able to defend yourself with your voice is a moot point because, in the age of the Internet, that is not where the discussions are taking place.