They are actually protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment protects businesses that won't do business with political opponents?

So if all the banks decided to stop doing business with all Democrats, you'd argue that was protected by the First Amendment?

So if you own a bakery and a Nazi insists you bake them a Nazi cake, you have to bake it I guess?

>So if you own a bakery and a Nazi insists you bake them a Nazi cake, you have to bake it I guess?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...

If the first amendment didn't exist the government could force a bakery to bake Nazi cakes. They can still force you to bake cakes based upon certain protected classes. So I guess if political affiliation became a protected class then maybe the government could force a bakery to bake a Nazi cake? I dunno.

> So if all the banks decided to stop doing business with all Democrats, you'd argue that was protected by the First Amendment?

Correct, it is. It would be foolish business, but they could do it. At least, that's my understanding.

What would more likely happen is this:

> Business announces no-Democrat policy

> Policy goes viral

> Business cancels policy due to public pressure and other businesses cutting ties due to the bad PR

> Republicans yell about 'cancel culture'

---

> So if you own a bakery and a Nazi insists you bake them a Nazi cake, you have to bake it I guess?

The first amendment literally works the opposite of this. That's exactly the kind of thing a business can refuse (though in some cases there are narrow carve-outs for certain types of identity).

You're being downvoted because of the misinformation in your post. Facebook isn't a publisher when it comes to user-made posts, so calling them one is misinformation.

> This isn't about Section 230. We need new legislation to reign in the unchecked ability of Silicon Valley to curb speech they disagree with.

Unchecked? What happened to the free market that the GOP constantly talked about, the sacred thing that the government shouldn't interfere with?

Not to mention there's no actual evidence of this:

> systematically denying their political enemies a platform.

What's happened so far is conservatives breaking the rules much more heavily than progressives, and then getting very upset when the consequences kick in (though to be sure, I've seen leftists getting mad about this too).