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.
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.