> Everyone realizes that.

Based on some of the posts in this thread, I disagree.

The arguments are generally over how private entities with relatively control of communications are regulated, not that the entities are private.

You can only pull the "They're a private entity - just choose not to do business with them" card until they're large enough to the point were you don't have an option (free market forces stop working), at which point regulators generally step in.

There are a lot of people in this thread that don't seem to understand the difference between the law and the principle.

The first amendment law protects the principle. It doesn't create it. While these hosts might not be in violation of any law, they are absolutely acting contrary to the principle of free speech.

"The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

I think these calls to disregard and/or weaking the principle first enshrined in the founding of this country are a greater danger than 3 mentally ill people with guns.

And you are welcome to do so. If you wish also to convince others, merely stating that this is what you think probably won't suffice.