And how is this different? Should a landlord be forced to provide rooms for someone they do not like? Should I have to tolerate a new-Nazi or whatever kind of kook? Clearly not. One cannot force another to accommodate them or provide a service. Business transactions are not a given, they take place only between two voluntarily acting individuals. Neither the seller or the buyer can use force through the coercive means of government to make the other do what they want. At least it is unconstitutional and incompatible with a free society. Obviously our government is rampant with such special interest rule.

One thing we absolutely wouldn’t do in any case is advocate federal intervention in order to place restrictions on an ISP’s services or pricing.

Interesting. But you will, apparently, support government restrictions on what a lawyer will charge for his or her services:

Conservative activists pushing two anti-lawyer initiatives for the 2008 ballot are violating state elections regulations, a union-backed group has charged.

…

At issue are two ballot measures co-sponsored by Russ Walker, the director of the Oregon chapter of FreedomWorks, an anti-tax group. The first would limit the contingency fees lawyers can charge their clients, to 10 percent of any court awards above $25,000.

http://www.freedomworks.org/newsroom/media_template.php?issue_id=3953

Why do you oppose one government restriction but support another? Or does FreedomWorks disavow itself of Russ Walker’s initiative?

And I’ll stand by the Best Buy analogy.

Why? It’s not accurate. Why would you stand by an analogy that logically doesn’t make any sense? It’s the landlord, Peter, not the store that’s “restricting speech.”

I’m not aware of the case law regarding tenant rights, but no matter how the law stands, the property owner ought to be able to bar the tenant from posting signs, etc. so long as it’s clearly spelled out in the contract.

Thankfully, property ownership doesn’t trump the constitution.

Yes, you’re right that there are some restrictions on speech: libel, obscenity, etc. I considered including a caveat when I wrote this, but didn’t consider it necessary. In hindsight, I probably should’ve noted that, yes, there are some exceptions.

As far as restaurants discrimination based on race, that’s not a speech issue. Race, unlike speech or behavior, isn’t a choice. You can’t choose to switch races, but you can choose to refrain from certain statements.

And I’ll stand by the Best Buy analogy. Anyone can walk into a retail establishment, but if you walk in a start a shouting match or pull out a sign with an advertisement for a competitor, you can be asked to leave. That’s not a violation of free speech.

I’m not aware of the case law regarding tenant rights, but no matter how the law stands, the property owner ought to be able to bar the tenant from posting signs, etc. so long as it’s clearly spelled out in the contract.

As far as our situation goes, I can’t speak definitively to our legal or business strategy. But my guess is that if an ISP banned FreedomWorks, we’d fight it in court if the ISP had a contractual obligation not to restrict our material. (And any ISP that guarantees access to an individual or organization and then refuses to provide that access should be taken to court — but that’s a contract violation, not a free speech issue.)

However, if an ISP simply changed its terms of service and notified us that they’d no longer be guaranteeing access, I’m fairly confident we’d look for another provider (and tell our friends to avoid the one we’d been on). One thing we absolutely wouldn’t do in any case is advocate federal intervention in order to place restrictions on an ISP’s services or pricing.

It’s a property owner placing reasonable restrictions on how property, generally open to the public but not owned by it, can be used.

How about a restaurant that refuses to serve people of color? What are “reasonable restrictions”?

Free speech is not an absolute right to do or say anything anywhere you please; it means there can be no legal action against you for the content of your speech.

Um, no. That’s absolutely wrong. Of course legal action can be taken against you for the content of your speech, even online. I work on cases like that (especially online libel) all the time. Why are you lying about this?

If an ISP wants to block obscenity or the websites of competitors or certain types of ads, it seems to me that, in the same way that retail establishments are allowed to control what’s said within or posted on their walls, internet providers ought to be allowed to do so.

Wow. Another deliberately dishonest analogy. It wouldn’t be the “retail establishment” controlling what’s said within its premises. The proper analogy would be a retail establishment’s landlord restricting the store’s speech. And there is already a load of case-law supporting the free speech of renters in such situations.

If my ISP started doing so in a way that was problematic for my regular usage, I’d jump ship to a slower but unblocked ISP as quickly as I could find the time — just as I stop frequenting grocery stores when they stop carrying my favorite products or raise their prices.

LMAO. So if AT&T suddenly decided to ban all FreedomWorks-related content, you’d just find “another ISP” and all would be fine? All you readers and advertisers would just swallow the fact that now millions of people wouldn’t ever see FreedomWorks? All your donors will keep their pockets open even though you wouldn’t be able to put up your gaspriceprotests and your angryrenters so you can pretend you actually do something for all that money? It would just be like “going to another store” for you?

Jesus, Peter, where’d your intellectual rigor go? This is like kicking puppies.