> So, you think that we should circumstantially limit constitutionally protected rights
According to your logic, you should think that common carrier laws should be repealed entirely.
Think, the telephone company blocking certain political groups, or the only water company in town, refusing to deliver water to certain people who say things that they don't like.
It is pretty similar, philosophically. Common carrier laws are pretty uncontroversial.
So it feels weird for you to be making these types of arguments, when it is already established, that there are major counter examples.
So you'd have to either recognize the contradiction, or admit that your position is at odds with other established, and uncontroversial laws.
I didn't take any particular position, I pointed out the incongruence in the one they espoused.
I'm admittedly mixed on common carrier laws, I think that they are "impure" in a sense, but I also think the benefits are greater than the costs, even taking into account the potential theoretical erosion of our rights.
I absolutely agree that there are major counterexamples, and I'm overall fine with that, but I'll also freely admit that I'm not a free speech absolutist of any form.
According to your logic, you should think that common carrier laws should be repealed entirely.
Think, the telephone company blocking certain political groups, or the only water company in town, refusing to deliver water to certain people who say things that they don't like.
It is pretty similar, philosophically. Common carrier laws are pretty uncontroversial.
So it feels weird for you to be making these types of arguments, when it is already established, that there are major counter examples.
So you'd have to either recognize the contradiction, or admit that your position is at odds with other established, and uncontroversial laws.