Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your response is somewhat an example of what I was talking about. By not clearly distinguishing between the different concepts you end up with muddled arguments. You've clarified here and said that in the private case there is a 'moral obligation'. Really? What exactly is the obligation? Falling back on the generic notion of 'free speech' doesn't actually clarify the argument. For example, if I managed a public forum…
I agree with you for the most part, but I also think that we can expect organizations above a certain size or influence to have a bigger moral obligation than the little players. Unlike law, morality is a gradient. It doesn't sound unreasonable to say that the more power you have to shape the world around you, the more obligation you have to use that power for the greater good. This kind of noblesse oblige is not a f…
Sounds like a problem that doesn't actually exist.