Re: Forced speech
It's an interesting argument that "freedom of speech" means "freedom not to carry someone else's speech". They sound like two different things to me.
The implication is that when something appears on a website, it's the website that's speaking, not the author of the text. Wasn't that exactly what ISPs were trying to avoid for years, with their "common carrier" defence?
Also: the website isn't a person. At most, it's a mouthpiece of an organization, Do all organizations benefit from "freedom of speech" in the same way that individual people do?
Finally, how does truth factor into this, or more particularly, libel?
Biting the hand that feeds IT
