I have heard of people being thrown out of mall's because they were wearing an offensive t-shirt. I think the analogy that google+ is basically private property that is open to the public. The website isn't owned by the public instead it is owned by google. The point of google censoring offensive content is to not only follow their own rules but to make the company that provides this service to still look good and keep up their public image.
...and, to add to your point, as a not-public organization they build this product for company benefit. They let you do things on it that they benefit from. Why on earth would they be required to let you do things that are bad for their business?
Sure, but good luck finding a company who cares more about letting you express your "fuck you's" than they do about money, and good luck to them in building to scale with money only from advertisers who don't mind being next to MG's middle finger.
good luck to them in building to scale with money only from advertisers who don't mind being next to MG's middle finger.
But would they have to? I mean, Google's whole business model is to match ads to the right content, and they specifically say they're good with detecting such "offensive" images, so they could simply content match advertisers who were looking for "edgy" images.
But, and I'm just throwing this out there so hold off on that downvote for a second, if a website has a comments section, doesn't such a feature act as something similar to a "town square"?
In which case, if a website has a comments section or other area where users can interact with one another, should that area be a "public" place, and allow free speech etc.?
Addition: since the purpose of free speech law is to allow anyone to say things that may well not be liked by an authority figure, companies being censors could act as a surprisingly effective loophole to free speech law. Just make all methods of communication between citizens pass through a company, who handles the censorship, leaving the tyrant free to go about their day.
I mean, I didn't read it, but I'm sure somewhere along the way of my signing up for Google+ I agreed to their terms of service stating that they could remove whatever content they deemed unacceptable that I post or create.
As for your addition, to make all methods of communications pass through a company would either require a law, which would be unconstitutional, or would require more insidious methods. The government already has plenty of insidious methods of dealing with people.
