"Free" speech only applies to governments limiting the free expression of their citizens. Private companies have no obligation to continue doing business with someone for any reason, especially when that individual is acting in bad faith by disparaging their business relationship.

No. Free speech (and other rights) isn't about governments but about people. Your rights aren't less violated because the violator has no democratic legitimation, that just makes it worse. The only way in which companies infringing your rights is less relevant is that companies having that ability shouldn't even exist, so making them behave is merely a band-aid.

That is nonsense. This isn't about limiting speech. It's about maintaining a business relationship. No one, individual or otherwise, has the right to force a business relationship, or any other relationship, between two people, entities, or companies unless both sides are willing to maintain it.

Of course you have a right to use the services companies provide! That's the whole point of allowing them to exist. Your approach just gives power to capitalists they shouldn't have.

It's obviously not quite as clear-cut when it comes to relationships between individuals that have rights.

So, let me get this straight... You think that "free speech" protections provide a mechanism that forces companies to maintain relationships with people that they don't want to do business with? So, if someone is harassing employees, being damaging, or any litany of other inappropriate behaviors, that company is still required to provide service to that person because that person has a right to service?

You have not thought this through, at all...

Rights are not absolute. Having a right does not entail having the right to abuse that right to violate the rights of someone else. Employees have the right not to be harassed. If a company stops doing business with you for that it defends its employee which is legitimate.

What is Apple defending here? Not their right not to be criticized because that doesn't exist. Their NDAs? That would be legitimate but locking Rambo out of his account won't achieve that aim.

So the only reason to disable his account is to punish him. That's the job of the state, its courts and executive. Not of a for-profit company that does not even allow him to know why he is being punished, let alone a hearing or an appeal court.

Your idea would compel companies to support speech that they don’t believe in. This is tantamount to forced speech.

The point of free speech is to make democracy work. There's no reason to grant it to companies.

You should really familiarize yourself with caselaw surrounding speech, and educate yourself about rights other than the freedom of speech. Your ideology is far too removed from reality, but your phrasing is too absolute. Be honest about the difference between your desires and legal reality. Otherwise, nobody is going to take you seriously.

I'm fairly leftist, and I support a pretty strong freedom of speech, but I'm also familiar enough with other rights to see how they get balanced against one another, a la "the right to swing your fist ends at my face." I read popehat, because the authors are attorneys specializing in the first amendment. They defend people I find deplorable; they've got politics I disagree with. But I keep reading, because they're experts and it's a good source of fact.

Where did I say anything about US law?

Aside from the Principality of Sealand, is there a country whose laws reflect your ideology? Genuinely curious.

But to answer your question, apple is first and foremost a US company.

> Aside from the Principality of Sealand

Sealand doesn't seem all that socialist to me but I'm not very familiar with it.

> But to answer your question, apple is first and foremost a US company.

Rights != what the law says rights are. Else it wouldn't be possible for the state to violate your rights on a large scale.

Anyway, Apple is subject to the laws of every country it operates in.

So I can censor a newspaper company who is publishing things I disagree with?

Of course, unlike the newspaper itself.

I don’t understand. Can the government control the contents of the newspaper and decide what the newspaper company may publish?