I don't know what it is about this particular topic that compels people to flood the conversation with egregious strawman fallacies, but anyway: I never suggested any of the shit that you're implying I did, so your argument falls totally flat and completely misses the point.

Probably no one posting in this ENTIRE FUCKING THREAD is arguing that Github broke the damn law. Quit pretending otherwise. TIA.

I mean, it's right in what you quoted! Read it again:

> Free speech doesn't start and stop at the first amendment to the US constitution.

We do, however, have the right to complain about it and take our business elsewhere. I'm not sure why you would see a problem with that.

...sure, but freedom of 'using whatever source code hosting provider' is a different (legal) concept as 'freedom of speech'.

When people say "freedom of speech" and they're not talking about a government entity, it's a pretty safe bet that they're talking about the principle enshrined in the first amendment, not the first amendment itself.

Considering that The Internet as a whole is basically amounts to a whole lot of interconnected, other people's (back yards/restaurants/other poor analogies for physical spaces), saying "but the first doesn't apply" is both willfully obtuse and missing the point.

> saying "but the first doesn't apply" is both willfully obtuse and missing the point.

It's almost always a response to a person who seems to think that freedom of speech means they shouldn't have to face any consequences for the horrible things they say.

And this itself is a mischaracterization. The problem is that the rubric for "horrible things to say" has been extended so far as to cover usage of the word "retard".

Much like the rubric for "harassment" has been extended to cover simple incivility.