Not OP but I think the thesis is that censorship by private entities isn't a first amendment issue because the constitution only applies to state actors. Similarly the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal test that only applies to the state, because of the power imbalance between individuals and the state. By comparison, in civil trials, the standard is "balance of probabilities".
No and that wasn't the point either. If I read the post correctly, OP is saying that "innocent before proven guilty" is a standard that only applies to the state. He then mentioned the first amendment as another commonly misinterpreted standard that only applies to the state. You have skipped entirely past the primary point, and latched on to the free speech example for some reason.
EDIT: also I see that OP has already replied to you, so go argue with him instead lol
Not OP but I think the thesis is that censorship by private entities isn't a first amendment issue because the constitution only applies to state actors. Similarly the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal test that only applies to the state, because of the power imbalance between individuals and the state. By comparison, in civil trials, the standard is "balance of probabilities".
okey dokey. do we care about the constitution as a source of right/wrong?
No and that wasn't the point either. If I read the post correctly, OP is saying that "innocent before proven guilty" is a standard that only applies to the state. He then mentioned the first amendment as another commonly misinterpreted standard that only applies to the state. You have skipped entirely past the primary point, and latched on to the free speech example for some reason.
EDIT: also I see that OP has already replied to you, so go argue with him instead lol