Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There are a few areas of regulated speech even in government-involved First Amendment scenarios [1].

It is true that private entities can kick out individuals for utterances found disagreeable. But what if those private entities are practically extensions of those in government positions, working closely with them? During the Framers' time, the proto-US did not have the equivalent of the Dutch East India Company, considered the most valuable company of all time [2].

At what point does a private entity grow so powerful that its private views applied in its selection of who to engage with turn into persecution of the kind that informed the separation of church and state principle [3]? I'd like to get a specialist historian's (specializing in the Framers' discussions) take on this, because I find it interesting that they were all very likely well aware of the Dutch East India Company, yet they did not find it a compelling enough entity to elevate to the level of the separation principle. So I have to wonder: what did they believe was the countervailing force against such a behemoth private entity's selection pressure turning into outright persecution?

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/g...

[2] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/most-valuable-companies-all...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state...



Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: