That's interesting. However, presumably the consequences of censorship on the censored individual can be equally detrimental whether it is perpetrated by the state or an individual/corporate entity?
For example, what happens if a company makes a product with a flaw that is literally killing people. Are they justified in removing a post from their web site forum that points this out? By your argument, in law, the answer is 'yes', but how does a user of product X feel about this?
I'm sorry, it is not clearly implicit to me. I might have been too hung up on whether it should be legal or not.
I read his post and think: Yes, it can be legal for the company to censor their own website, and it would not be immoral for it to be legal. But, it would be completely immoral for them to remove a post from their website without fully dealing with the problem.
For example, what happens if a company makes a product with a flaw that is literally killing people. Are they justified in removing a post from their web site forum that points this out? By your argument, in law, the answer is 'yes', but how does a user of product X feel about this?