But that scenario is based around "independent" reprisals. The real threat we are facing today is directly connected consequences...
> [government] can legally do far more things than private organizations
This completely misses my original point - both government and private organizations can do things that effectively punish. For example, a mall can kick you out and banish you for wearing an offensive T-shirt. This is not a problem when malls are but a small part of society, but form a restriction equivalent to government if one's entire society is made up of malls.
Title IX is a good example of a law which can be expanded to limit the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly by coercion. This has come about because federal funding is an indispensable portion of the modern research university's budget. As such, no 1 person, no 1 group can be allowed to threaten the University's compliance with the law. Therefore, the law enables the government to coerce the institution into severing its private contract with the offensive party - student or faculty. In effect, a government agency is able to punish political speech by proxy.
As 25% of the GDP, and probably upwards of 90% of the spending in many industries (e.g. defense contracting), the governments spending power has given it unforseen power to demand a trade of speech for access to economic opportunities. We need a law similar to "too big to fail" in sectors where the government has monopoly-like powers.
Do you not think the common belief that governments are of, for, and by the people, compared to the common belief that businesses are self-interested, results in differences in what those organizations can actually end up doing?
I'm not saying the two are equivalent - distinguishing between the two could obviously be useful in a different discussion. I'm following this reduction to illustrate a contradiction.
System behavior cannot be met by creating the correct "axiomatic primitives" and then blindly building on them. We are computer scientists, and so we know that complexity eventually creates emergent behavior that likely contradicts our original goals. System behavior must be analyzed for its qualitative effects in the "big picture", to see if our goals are being met.
That is the most succinct explanation I've heard yet for why virtually all of economics is wrong.
They are both institutions, and as such share all the issues common to large bodies of humans trying to operate in unison, but the reductionism in the analogy is too big for it to be meaningful.
> So in order to mean anything at all, the concept of Freedom of Speech (and really, any societal ideals) must mean something more general.
No, it has to mean nothing more and it's quite meaning as is.
It is you who are choosing to adopt this law as the entirety of what the concept means to you.
I do not agree, Facebook is displaying the speech they choose to display and this is their exercise of their freedom of speech on their website. Same for twitter. Users have no right/reason to expect they can say anything on these private properties.
> In this case, my statement is meant to encourage people to seek out Freer software.
We agree on that.
Furthermore, the actual text of the first amendment does not define freedom of speech, but explicitly references it as an external concept.
This does not follow. Your narrow definition does nothing to stop a private organization, with its own motive for supporting the president, from deploying some black helicopters.
This is not a nit - any government is isomorphic to a perfect "Libertopia" where a single corporation owns everything. In other words, if you don't like a country's rules, then just leave their premises!
So in order to mean anything at all, the concept of Freedom of Speech (and really, any societal ideals) must mean something more general. We cannot simply create a basic foundation of rules, and then let emergent structure usurp any qualitative guarantees we had desired!