I’m not sure how I feel about it, but I think I’ve summarized the best version of the argument.
We hold newspapers or TV station legally liable for the content they serve. This is fair. Situation in which they couldn't be sued for the stuff they air still making money on it -- that's the current situation with them. It's even worse because they can somehow censor the content they don't like for their own political reasons.
It's like with banks. Yes, we can make money. And yes when times are bad we can get money from the government/tax payers too. This is not freedom this is fascism.
The stance is absurd - tt is akin to saying that Kinkos should be liable for anything printed beyond "they knowingly used ink laced with weaponized anthrax" - and should be charged with terrorism because a customer who quietly printed a bomb threat formatted to look like a resume - just because they kick you out for openly printing Goatse.ck and every other old shock site which scares away the other customers.
No one has the right to turn off electric grid on your house because they are "private company". No one has the right to turn off "running water" from your sink because they are "private company" and if you don't like it, you can go somewhere else or open your own. The same way, no one has right to censor me because they are "private company" and if I don't like it I can go ahead and open my own Youtube. They should be and will be regulated as utilities.
https://www.fcc.gov/media/radio/public-and-broadcasting#OBSC...
> Indecent Material. Indecent material is protected by the First Amendment, so its broadcast cannot constitutionally be prohibited at all times. However, the courts have upheld Congress' prohibition of the broadcast of indecent material during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience, which the Commission has determined to be between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Indecent programming is defined as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Broadcasts that fall within this definition and are aired between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. may be subject to enforcement action by the FCC.
You may have a right to receive water. But you don't have a right to pee in the water supply.
Nor should the private water company be obligated to ensure that your pee goes into the tap water of every household.
And who decides what is responsible?
This may be helpful https://www.popehat.com/2019/08/29/make-no-law-deplatformed/
And, does this imply that slavery comes with blissfull carelessness?
And yes, if you have no freedom you cannot be considered responsible for what you do or don't. A slave cannot be held responsible for actions he's been ordered to perform. This might not be "blissful carelessness" but certainly is lack of responsibility.
Responsibility is both a way of acting that is mindful of the consequences, and simply the fact that people will ask you to respond of the consequences of your actions.
The two are strictly connected but are not the same. You "act responsibly" when you are prepared to answer tough questions about your actions. The simple fact that you will be asked to answer those questions, independently from your actions, is the fact of "being responsible".
So responsibility as virtue is not required by freedom; but as a simple fact of life it is its consequence, people will consider you responsible for what you do.
A great example of how many people don’t care about right and wrong, just winning.
So there's no contradiction between "Google is wrong to censor" and "Google should be free to censor".
Not so if you value freedom of human beings above all else, and even less so if you would wish to maximize human freedom across the population.
Unregulated capitalism maximizes the potential for freedom, if you win a lottery ticket, at the expense of diminishing freedom for all the losers. Libertarians tend to either already be rich or believe they have a significant shot at winning the lottery ticket.
A practical example: lack of worker rights in the US corresponds to more freedom in the abstract, but in practice creates a society where the average worker is much less free than, say, the average European worker. For example, workers in more regulated labor markets enjoy many more days of vacation on average, leading to literally more freedom to explore the world and pursue personal interests.
Thats not libertarian, its freedom to do whatever you want that doesn't affect other people.
If you value freedom above all else, Google being an independent entity, should have the freedom to ban / veto whomever they want.
You can't have it both ways: let people be free to say whatever they want AND force the owners of communication channels to spread all information.