Freedom of speech, the First Amendment, and the Josh Hawley book Simon and Schuster doesn't want you to read!

Sometimes the law is really trivial, as the subject (or relevant part) is simple. Is the government involved? No, and the first amendment is irrelevant. That’s it.

(now watch a lawyer say I’m wrong)

https://media1.tenor.com/images/08cd5cfcf1591d5fae6f3131dea59b55/tenor.gif?itemid=15373383

I am old and whitebread. Please explain your .gif to me. Thank you.

It’s from a famous video where the dude in the middle starts it off with “I’m gonna end this man’s whole career” and then he drops some lines/rhymes/knowledge (idk, I just know it from the meme) and his whole crew loses their minds at how thoroughly, irrevocably owned his rival is and will always be.

In other words:

“Good show, old chap. I daresay that blackguard shall ne’er rebut such a thorough debunking in all his days!”

The phone company can disconnect you. The governement can order the phone company to disconnect you.

Theres a huge difference and is this:

Not a great example, when phone companies are the prototypical example of common carriers…

Just to check, is this a “there’s no difference” joke?

Corporations have sometimes more power than governements.

You can escape from the Japan governement by leaving the country, but how you would escape from Nintendo?

This idea that censorship is only censorship when is done by the governement is some XIXs shit, and I have enough of it. [Edit] I don’t think is a useful distinction when somebody can be Youtuber and depend on youtuber, or a Uber driver, or his whole company depend on the Amazon wills and a lot of dependencies that exist in the real world (but not on the definition world).

Now I have to worry about escaping from Nintendo?

Nintendo should be required to publish your books? Host your blog site? Seriously, I don’t really know what you mean.

They even have a diagram about how you fuck your life.

Companies routinelly use the DMCA to remove opinions they don’t like from the internet. That means your eyeballs don’t see the opinion of some person that have a message for you. And I call that censorship.

I think I know how to avoid that sort of unwanted attention from Nintendo. Just sayin’.

And I don’t have any idea what it has to do with…the right to free speech?

I have no words.

Would you describe your post has a version of
“Do nothing wrong and you have nothing to fear”

Edit:
Sorry for the derail. This is a pet-peeve of mine.

By playing playing real mature games like Sonic, rather than that lame Mario stuff. It’s for little kids.

No, it’s a version of I don’t know what any of that has to do with free speech, and none of it is an answer to the question ‘do you think Nintendo is obligated to publish your book for you’.

This is an example of a corporation using the law to restrict the platform on which a person can make a statement. Tom remains free to say whatever he wishes, just not necessarily to have it spread to a wide audience.

There are certainly problems with both how the law is formulated and how it is widely misapplied, but it doesn’t constitute a stifling of freedom of speech.

So you’re saying that because they provide a public forum, Nintendo should not be allowed to moderate its content or membership? That’s a pretty extreme view.

The rationale is that companies consolidate and collude, and maybe bribe a law or two, to control who has access to a megaphone or not (as there’s so much speech it gets lost in the wind) and thus what ideas get to float around and gain prominence.
As history plays out, and I see who mostly backs the thought and why, I certainly care a lot less than I did ages ago, but I still think it is a bit of an issue. It helps to think it isn’t really new and humanity managed to slowly improve anyway. And it isn’t first amendment material, no. Certainly not something a corporate welfarist would ever argue.

Nobody said the review was published on a Nintendo site, so I don’t see why you’re assuming Nintendo would have provided the forum in question. It’s possible they could DMCA a review on Youtube, and yes I don’t think they should have that power.

You’re right. I stuck my nose into an argument without finding out the context. Having already given up dignity, I’ll bow myself out now :)