News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by lmm on Friday August 18, 2017 @09:27AM (#15045865)
> I'm 99.99% certain if freedom of speech was formulated today, it would include private companies as well.

Freedom of speech already does. Unfortunately Americans tend to conflate the broad concept with the US First Amendment.

Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by mantas on Friday August 18, 2017 @09:36AM (#15045954)
Which "freedom of speech" does? European Freedom of speech has quite a few caveats too.

There were cases where people lost their jobs for their extracurricular legal activities that were hate speech according to someone. Like in US, private companies seem to give in much quicker than government that tries to follow the law to the letter.

Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by tome on Friday August 18, 2017 @10:19AM (#15046393)
The general notion of what it means for speech to be free, not a legal protection of that notion.
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by falcolas on Friday August 18, 2017 @09:38AM (#15045972)
Usually because that's the only place it's really codified into law or any other legitimate document in the US. The Supreme Court has limited the scope of the first amendment, but that's all just implicitly codified via past decisions and opinions - a less discoverable format I've yet to find.