Sure it is. It's not a 1st Amendment issue, true. But—generically—it is a free speech issue. Reddit is adding more rules about what you can and can't post, which affects how free the speech is on their platform.

They are entirely within their rights to do this. No doubt. Voat does not have as many (any?) restrictions on the content users can post. The speech is freer on their platform.

I may sound pedantic on this, but I think it's important to fight for freedoms even when they're not enshrined in law. So to grandparent's point, the bigots are often the ones who do so, as a matter of necessity. Now the gun, beer, and cigar aficionados are finding themselves in the same category as Nazis and Klansmen.

This is absolutely a free speech issue. Not in the sense that it's protected by law, but the law isn't relevant.

The bill of rights comes from a belief that certain rights are self-evident and inherent to all people. In the modern mindset, we have a broader definition of "people" than the founding fathers (that is, we include people of all genders and races). Included in those rights is freedom of speech. Human rights don't simply disappear because you're communicating on a corporate-owned platform.

I've seen a number of comments and articles suggesting that, somehow, social media and the freedom of communication permitted by the internet are incompatible with democracy and social order. There seems to be a fear of freedom of speech as a dangerous principle which could lead to a demand for government control, or at the very least, a general mistrust of non centralized and proprietary communications platforms.

>Freedom of speech != freedom to publish whatever wherever you want.

Wherever you want, no... but whatever you want, yes, more or less.

The only rights protecting you and I are the rights that protect the scum that many people currently (and understandably) want to see driven off of social media and out of public discourse. They act as the canaries in the coal mine of personal liberty, and democracy depends on the capacity for the free exchange of ideas, communication and debate.

The government chartered the corporation that is engaging in the censorship, and granted its owners limited liability.

Strip away the privileges, and I wouldn't feel it necessary to impose additional obligations.

In my personal opinion, corporations chartered by a government cannot engage in acts forbidden to that government. If you want to exercise your rights as a natural person, you must be prepared to accept full responsibility for the consequences of your actions. If you want to shield yourself from those consequences through a fictional entity, then follow the rassafrassin' rules.

The US government is forbidden from restricting free speech, and so its corporations should not be engaging in viewpoint-based discrimination on that portion of their private property that they have explicitly opened as a public forum. If you allow the public into your space, you have to respect their rights.

You are confusing the moral concept of free speech with USA’s 1st amendment. The latter is only a narrow implementation of the former. Nobody hear argued this is unconstitutional in the US.

I can think of no reasonable justification for that comment.

Maybe you do.

If you dislike the first amendment, there are plenty of countries you can move to that don't have it.

Please elaborate.

> Talking about all that as if it would be all just about badly written literature is misleading.

It's dishonest. And they know they're being dishonest.