What sometimes gets lost in the free speech debate is that the First Amendment applies only to what the government can do, not to what private citizens and corporations can do.
Most of the time when someone claims their freedom f speech is being violated, the First Amendment simply doesn't apply. We don't have a First Amendment right to say whatever we want on this forum because Harry is a private citizen and it's his board; if he doesn't like what he's seeing, he's free to shut a user out. If Fox decides the blowback has been too great and will hurt their bottom line, they're free to fire or suspend Ingraham (interesting that she suddenly remembered she had a vacation); however, if the FCC were to step in and demand her removal, it becomes a First Amendment issue.
"The same holds true for groups in public, especially when a city demands they get a permit to do so. The SCOTUS has already ruled that citizens do NOT have the right to shut down someone else's speech just because they disagree with it, and neither does government."
Citizens don't have a right to shut it down if it's on public property, but they can still protest against it. And while local governments can't deny a permit because of the beliefs involved, they will often go to great lengths to keep the opposing sides apart and can pull a permit in the interest of public safety if they feel they can't control the situation and people will get hurt.
That's basically what happened in Charlottesville - both sides had permits to assemble in two separate parks, but the rioting happened in the streets leading to the parks - very few people made it to the parks where the events were supposed to be held. Once the situation got out of control in the streets and someone was killed, the park permits were pulled and the events were canceled. In that case, public safety became the priority.
|
