Disney is a private sector
corporation acting within the best interests of it’s shareholders.
That is debatable and not at all relevant to the issue regardless. If the interest of the shareholders was for some reason to gas Jews that would in no way mean Disney should be firebombed any less.
Freedom of speech exists to protect agents such as this.
As others have pointed out an amendment of the constitution exists to protect agents such as this (non government from government). The principle of free speech has justifications far deeper than "cause some guys in the 18th century thought so".
DJT was president of the United States. Freedom of speech exists to protect agents of the free market from individuals in positions such as this.
and they treated him just the same before he was president, after they decided he was the most dangerous man in America. The struggle I referred to is wider than one principle and one issue, and that was the point.
You should not lie to people, but if you're in a war you lie to your enemy whenever you can. It does not matter if they have not lied to you, they have bombed you and thus forfeited all of their rights until such time as the threat they pose has ended.
Do you understand the distinction and why that distinction is relevant to this conversation?
I understand the distinction between public and private entities. I also understand that the reason the founders believed they needed to limit the government and not the people is because the people were already limited by laws. The problem they were trying to fix was the aggressive use of force by government.
They could not conceive of a way a private entity could seriously hamper free speech, they thought the government was the only danger in that regard. However they did leave one example that tells us how they would view social media, the US postal service.
They considered any interference with the post to by a grave sin against the people. The idea that someone would open letters to potentially censor them was abhorrent to them.
The civil rights act similarly requires a distinction between rendering a service and control of speech. For instance a racist shop might claim that infringes on their free speech to be forced to provide a burger to a black person, but it doesn't. Neither is censorship on social media an infringement on their free speech. They may choose to deliver text to other people, or they may choose not to deliver text; but they may not discriminate and that has no reflection on what they choose themselves to say.
A racist shop owner can still be racist even if they serve a black man. A rabidly collectivist social media company can still be rabidly collectivist even if they deliver messages they disagree with over the internet. They are more like a postal service than they are a newspaper, they would never have become the defacto public square if they acted like a newspaper.
