The only way I can imagine this making sense is if you admit that the US is a failed state. If the
President of the United States needs assistance from a legal nonprofit to defend his civil liberties, then the US government has failed entirely and we should just start anew.
I don't think this is the case, so I'm led to think there's some other flaw in this line of reasoning. Notably,
> Censure was once only available to the government, since they ostensibly controlled all public spaces and had the forces to make it so.
Is plainly false. You've never had the "right to distribution". A printing press owner didn't have to publish your pamphlet. The church never needed to let you give a sermon. The NYT didn't have to publish your article. CNN has never had an obligation to let you on air. There has always been a "best" method of distribution, and its always been private.
Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties.
I don't think this is the case, so I'm led to think there's some other flaw in this line of reasoning. Notably,
> Censure was once only available to the government, since they ostensibly controlled all public spaces and had the forces to make it so.
Is plainly false. You've never had the "right to distribution". A printing press owner didn't have to publish your pamphlet. The church never needed to let you give a sermon. The NYT didn't have to publish your article. CNN has never had an obligation to let you on air. There has always been a "best" method of distribution, and its always been private.
Twitter blocking Trump isn't functionally different than the NYT or WaPo publishing the pentagon papers. It is a private organization exercising their right to push back against government propaganda. It is first amendment protected, and it should unequivocally be defended by those who believe in civil liberties.