Anyway, the topic of this thread is censorship and I was hoping to comment on that.
I agree with the view stated here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
[i]Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court, in which it ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town’s sidewalk, notwithstanding the fact that the sidewalk where the distribution was taking place was part of a privately owned company town.
In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Marsh. The opinion, joined by three justices, was authored by Justice Hugo Black, with Justice Felix Frankfurter authoring a concurrence, and Justice Stanley Forman Reed authoring a dissent.
The Court initially noted that this would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered, municipality. In such a case it would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not constitutional freedom of speech protections could be denied simply because a single company held title to the town.
The State attempted to analogize the town’s rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership “does not always mean absolute dominion.” The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.
In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially using a balancing test, weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted, however, that the latter occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens’ fundamental rights and liberties.[/i]
I also like this: nytimes.com/1994/12/21/nyreg … ml?mcubz=1
In New Jersey, two lower courts had upheld the malls’ contention that they could limit noncommercial activity on their private property. But today the State Supreme Court sided with the protesters who had argued that [b]a mall constitutes a modern-day Main Street.[/b]
The internet, or parts thereof, are increasingly becoming modern-day mainstreet and I believe no one has the right to privatize a popular public gathering place for the purposes of profit and dictatorial control of public opinion.
I also see little distinction in government and corporatocracy, but if I did, I would fear the latter more.