Re: @ecofeco @Overunder Am I bad for not...
"Should Mark Zuckerberg take down 'Jews for Jesus' from FB because he's Jewish and finds their site to be distasteful?"
And that is the problem in a nutshell. On the one hand, it is a private company. The 1st Amendment applies to FB and its users not being censored by government, not to FB users being censored by Zuckerberg. On the other hand, the 1st Amendment freedom of speech applies to everyone. In fact, the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that what is generally held to be hate speech (a term that is not legally defined in the US) is in fact protected speech under the 1st Amendment, the most recent case being Mataal v. Tam (2017) in a unanimous ruling. In other words, Congress cannot pass a law to prevent hate speech, as it would be unconstitutional, The Communications Decency Act of 1996 was an attempt to ban, or at least protect children from, pornography by making it illegal to publish "indecent" or "obscene" content that might potentially be seen or heard by children. The "indecent" provision, the part that could possibly be used to refer to hate speech, was ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS in Reno v. ACLU (1997).
So actually, Zuckerberg has no liability for anything said on FB, and neither does he have any legal obligation to ban any sort of hate speech on FB. At the same time, Section 230 of the CDA protects him from liability for banning hate speech.
Ditto for Google and Apple. They don't have to ban hate speech, but they can choose to do so. However, if they choose to do so, then they must do so uniformly. They cannot discriminate because of race, religion, age, political views, etc. The banning of Parler has given them exposure that they didn't have before, in that CSW now has a case related to treating Telegram Messenger differently than the Parler app.