The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Is the left eating itself?

I feel like we have made a lot of progress to get here, even though you don't directly say it.

Your complaints that actions from small publishers, twitter mobs, and the like have a chilling effect on speech have been deflated. You seem to have abandoned arguing for it. Please be respectful of this decision in the future.

Let's trim some more fat before moving on to what you're now arguing for.

In your previous examples, the people who have been "censored" have been removed by payment providers and domain registrars. I'd say the argument for being "guaranteed" service by these companies on grounds of speech is fairly less complex than social media, where you are literally encouraged to promote speech. They cited terms of service violations around hate speech and incitement of violence in some cases - they were being disruptive. So, do you think these companies should not have the right to refuse service? Social media companies also argue disruption and ToS violation, so where is the line you'd draw where this right is taken away?

As a head start on your main argument, and before you answer the above, the essential reason the cake shop was violating the Civil Rights Act is that refusing service was not on grounds of behavior disruptive to their legitimate business interests, and was not equivalent to compelling speech - e.g. the cake shop was not forced to promote the cake for the same-sex wedding, only to make it, and this had no impact on their business otherwise. The payment providers and domain registars (and social media) are all arguing that these customers DO represent a disruption to their legitimate business interests. (Social media, I would argue, is additionally compelled to promote speech in a limited way).

Addendum: If a publicly known Nazi wanted to make a website about cute kittens, I would agree that they should be allowed to do so as refusing them because they're a Nazi is not a legitimate reason for a business regarded as a "public accommodation". It's the act of disruption that has put their service in jeopardy. A private organization would be within their right to refuse service for any reason, including collusion, which is why I a) didn't bring that up and b) didn't address your desire to move the argument there.