That is sort of the point. Once all speech transits corporate networks and those corporations are empowered to censor that speech then the public square protected by the U.S. Constitution no longer exists.
That's not necessarily the case. They may have accepted it as a best compromise, as they did the division of Germany into East and West.
I have. The German model is wrong for the reasons you allured to. If states can't be trusted to be arbiter of acceptable speech then they shouldn't have that job.
> And remember, the German constitution was written at the pleasure of the allies
That would be an appeal to authority and we all know US made few mistakes in the past so I'm not sure why you'd want to use that fallacy.
> This is largely cultural I'm sure.
Must be. Thinking that the state is always right and bossing people that disagree is historically very German.
Well, there is such a place. The U.S.
However, in Germany, German rules of speech apply. As a German, I consider this a good thing. And remember, the German constitution was written at the pleasure of the allies -- the US were apparently quite happy with the way our constitution balances freedom and responsibility.
And, corner cases aside, so am I. I prefer "responsible speech" to the US "wild west speech". This is largely cultural I'm sure.
Of course once we accept that Germany can insist on their own model of speech, so can China. Or Syria. Or Thailand. Which I find hardly ideal, given that I'd like to propagate liberal (and, dare I say it, "western") values. But I don't have a decent solution to this conundrum.