[Dan_77]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Freedom of speech has always applied to printing presses. Let's not be so strict as to be silly.

Then why does the Constitution also say "press" separately?

I don't believe that freedom of speech is limited to actual "speech", I was just pointing out a disjoinder in the arguments of many so-called originalists here.

For that matter, freedom of speech is not merely a constitutional right, it's something that we need to actually be able to exercise if we are to have an effective democracy. I made some arguments above against the libertarian notion that being censored on YouTube is irrevant, and you have not addressed these.

OK...

It is in the nature of community sites that there needs to be a critical mass. A big part of what makes YouTube better than the competition is simply its market share. For that matter, imagine how useless eBay would be if it didn't have so many people using it.

A big part of what makes shopping malls better than a single store in a parking lot is their market share of available products in one place, but they can still ban people from saying or doing objectionable things on their property and they are still private entities.

And your argument contradicts your fears. Youtube and Ebay have an interest in bringing the most people possible to their sites, which runs specifically contrary to a policy of banning everyone who commits some minor taboo. Just the same, shopping malls don't generally eject people merely for being slightly offensive - bad body odor or unkempt appearance, for example.

Of deeper concern are ISP's who shut down sites or disable domains based on anything short of a court order forcing them to do so. Such companies should be sued to oblivion, as they violate the requirements of a common carrier.

To what requirements of a common carrier do you refer?