Notes:

"1. In early English history the right to “freedom of speech” only applied within the four walls of Parliament. In 1689, William and Mary acknowledged “That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament”, a sentiment that today finds expression in the Debate Clause. Just as today people tell you that “freedom of speech” only protects you against government action, and an 18th-century jurist would tell you it only protects you against Congress, so too would a 17th-century Lord tell you it only protects members of Parliament. The real meaning of the phrase is on the move, and has been for many centuries. The question is whether we will stand on the side of history that argues for its expansion, or on the side that thinks it’s come quite far enough.

2. Although in this case SCOTUS considered a Congressional restraint on circulation, the reasoning was eventually extended to certain private actors. See, generally, Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, Wickersham v. City of Columbia, 481 F.3d 591, Brentwood Acad. v. TN Sec. School Ath. Assn, 531 U.S. 288, etc.

3. I’m not advocating that as a matter of law companies should be forced to allow dissenting opinions on their platform. (Although in some cases it may be warranted. And if it is warranted in the Internet case, I think it is difficult for the warrant to stop there.) Rather, I am suggesting it is our duty as platform operators to allow the widest possible dissent on our platforms, and our duty as Internet citizens to hold our platforms to a high standard. Collectively, we have much more power to enact the restraint of speech than any government in history."