* a good portion of the law as it exists is actually a result of people thinking, in legal contexts, about what ought to be, at least insofar as any portion of the law represents values and ideals.

* any new "what ought to be" that turns out to be at some point in the future will need the force of law in one sense or another, which means it must be nested within a legal context, probably one enough like the present legal context that some if not all present constraints will matter.

"I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech."

and ending with

"What’s your point? That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works?" ?

The power of enforcement follows from policy, in a democracy policy is influenced by public opinion, public opinion is shaped by discussion. We ought to discuss moral issues for which there is currently no enforcement.

The First Amendment is one specific protection of freedom of speech. It does not equal freedom speech, which is a general concept that private companies can also uphold (but I think everyone here acknowledges they are not legally obligated to)

Im still wondering why anyone expects this of youtube but would never ever expect it of the bar down the street.

I haven't been in a bar where the patrons were told they couldn't discuss quack medicine.

That's over specific.

All bars (even the worst ones I could find) usually have unspoken rules about what can be discussed, until you start to talk about those subjects (eg drug dealing, weapons dealing, planned violence, etc) openly. Of course you can't effectively restrict communication between individuals, but that's also not the issue.

Of course “more problematic” is not the bar for anti-trust regulation; I leave that to the lawyers.