Today, all presses are owned by corporations, and this really changes things. Corporations do not need the right to free speech, nor do they feel compelled to grant it to their customers. If I say something nasty about Windows on a Microsoft site, they are not inclined to just leave it there. Thus, with the right to a free press more or less monopolized by corporations, the only right left to people is the literal right to freely speak... although even that has been coming under fire lately.

They do not want to publish this. As an up-front, contractual agreement between two parties for services rendered, this is not a problem. There are plenty of people who will publish pornography and hatred, as Userland hardly has a monopoly on web site hosting! However, that is not giving them the right to come into one of my web pages and change it because I said something nasty about Frontier.

You will not use any services provided by UserLand for purposes of distributing pornography or to promote hatred.

I think this "not forcing" idea explains the agreement I had to make with Userland before they allowed me to host this site. One part of that agreement reads:

Certainly one cannot force a press owner to print something against their will. It was to be assumed in the times that the Constitution was written that if you could not find a press owner to print something, it was not impossible to band enough people together to buy a press of your own.

Obviously, in the time that this was written there was only speech, literally speaking out in the streets or townhouses, or the press, a literal machine with which to turn out many many copies of a written work quickly. Certainly there was no internet! But I think we all quite clearly understand what is intended here, which is that the people are free to speak their mind. The primary purpose of this speech is to advance the Great Conversation, which is supposed to be how we run this country. In other words, free speech and press are important not just for the individuals, but for the society as a whole.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, look at the First Amendment again:

Look at the countries. We're not talking Libya or some other far-out country, we're talking the countries that work from the same basic set of laws as the United States is, in particular British Common law.

In Britain, I think we see a clear pattern emerging, and it's only the beginning.