> Free speech is what is enshrined within the First Amendment.

Again, the concept of free speech is older than America and more fundamental than the first amendment. What is legal is not the bar. I am not sure I can make it any more clear than that, and I am not sure why you are clinging to current legal definitions when the point I am making is about doing better than the status quo.

> Democrats are centrist/center-right by world standards. Certainly by European and Canadian standards anyways -- the bulk of the world's other democracies.

As for your claim that Democrats are center-right by "world standards". The world's largest Democracy is India and Democrats would absolutely not be center-right there. Nor in most of Europe. You are likely taking a thin slice of select European countries like Sweden - who themselves are confused at the claims made by the American left about Swedish politics - and casting that as the barometer for what is left, center, or right.

Pick whatever semantic label you feel comfortable with. I am talking about the Progressive Left, which is described here as "Progressive Activists": https://hiddentribes.us/profiles

> Again, the concept of free speech is older than America and more fundamental than the first amendment. What is legal is not the bar. I am not sure I can make it any more clear than that, and I am not sure why you are clinging to current legal definitions when the point I am making is about doing better than the status quo.

Your rights end where mine begin, is the case I'm making.

By forcing me to offer you a platform you're violating my rights to free speech. A right to speak must also follow a right not to speak in the way freedom of religion must also necessarily involve a freedom from religion. You can't make me, a private entity, tell your story in your words. I certainly don't expect Breitbart to publish my feelings on how America doesn't have a "left" using my words. Should I be able to force you to publish my essay on your blog?

I can't actually think of a time when "free speech" as you describe it ever existed. There's never been a country where media was required by law to publish whatever was given them. Certainly not in feudal days, not in the industrial revolution, and not today.

Just wondering, what do you think about a company refusing to serve a gay person? Would they have the freedom of association?

Even if you say that they should be free to not serve said person, this still does not make it ethical - just like if you start calling homosexuals slurs out of nowhere, just because you are free to do it, it does not mean that you won't be an asshole.

Democrats consistently defend or advocate for policies that are to the left of those in many European and Canadian countries. Some examples:

* Birthright citizenship based on being physically born within the country—not the case in any European country

* Opposition to school vouchers, which are part of the Swedish education system

* Support for a single-payer “Medicare for All” system along with the prohibition of private health insurance. Only Canada and Taiwan have this particular type of system, with nearly every other country allowing some sort of private insurance to supplement public systems.

* US corporate tax rates are extraordinarily high by the standards of other developed countries; Democrats consistently oppose lowering them.

* Many European countries have reformed their old age pensions to avoid long term deficit spending. Democrats oppose this type of reform to Social Security.

> Birthright citizenship based on being physically born within the country—not the case in any European country.

That's more an artifact of America's history, IMO, as it was brought in to side-step Dredd Scott. America didn't have it until the southern states refused to allow citizenship for African Americans even after the emancipation proclamation. I don't believe in birthright citizenship because I don't think it makes sense, but I respect why Americans support it. It's just not a big problem one way or the other. Especially since y'all extract tax revenue from American citizens no matter where on earth they live. You should encourage everyone to have babies in America and fly back where they came from to help offset the deficit ;)

> Opposition to school vouchers, which are part of the Swedish education system.

It's not part of the vast majority of the world's school systems. That the Swedes made it work doesn't make it left vs. right.

> Support for a single-payer “Medicare for All” system along with the prohibition of private health insurance.

A few candidates are, but nobody who's become nominee for the Democrats has supported socialized medicine of any flavor, whether that's two-tier or single-payer.

> US corporate tax rates are extraordinarily high by the standards of other developed countries; Democrats consistently oppose lowering them.

I'm not sure that's a left v. right thing but more a function of the trillion dollar deficit.

> Many European countries have reformed their old age pensions to avoid long term deficit spending. Democrats oppose this type of reform to Social Security.

I don't know enough to weigh in on this.

> nobody who's become nominee for the Democrats has supported socialized medicine of any flavor, whether that's two-tier or single-payer.

Obama originally proposed a public option for Obamacare, but withdrew that part of the plan to get the rest of the reform passed. Bill Clinton had a universal health care plan in 1993. Even Harry Truman campaigned for national health insurance in 1948.

Of the current candidates, Biden supports a public option while Warren and Sanders support a single-payer system.

> I'm not sure that's a left v. right thing but more a function of the trillion dollar deficit.

The net effect of high corporate taxes is that corporations don't pay them anyway. The corporate taxes that actually do get paid tend to be in countries like Ireland with low corporate taxes. If Democrats were as reasonable and centrist as their European counterparts, they would advocate for a revenue-neutral lowering of corporate tax offset by increases in individual taxes.

The question is not about what is guaranteed but about what should be guaranteed. By deciding what to show and what to hide google breaks the implicit contract made with me as a consumer: which is i gladly give up privacy, do not use an adblocker, vote against politicians who try to harm googles busyness, and in return get the information i am interested in. If they want to harm me by hiding information, i'll try to fight back so that another company could take their place. But this whole "fighting" is unproductive and harmful for the society, that's why we need to introduce fair rules to regulate such conflicts.

In some states free speech extends to private property that serves public function like a mall or square.