Just because you (legally) can, doesn't mean you should. Freedom to express opinions (that someone may judge good or bad or even dangerous) is important. It's so important that people are constantly (and usually incorrectly) invoking 1st amendment rights. If the tables were turned, progressives would be screaming bloody murder and demanding an end to censorship by private conservative companies if they "showed them the door". For the moment, progressives hold the social media power positions. Someday, they may not. Then what? People should treat others the way they want to be treated if they happen to be on the "wrong" side.
>People should treat others the way they want to be treated if they happen to be on the "wrong" side.
How should someone be treated who has made it clear that they will never follow the Golden Rule, no matter how they're treated? Because that's the situation we appear to find ourselves in.
I find it useful, although not particularly encouraging, to think in terms of the Prisoners' Dilemma. In theory, initial co-operation followed by judicious application of the golden rule will lead to both parties converging on the best outcome. But if one party makes it clear that they will always betray the other (and demands that the other stay silent, in order to give the first party their desired better outcome) how should the other respond?
Sure, cooperation (silence) is objectively the better choice. But once you are confident it will always be met with betrayal, what does the correct or best action become?
And that's setting aside the inherent quality of the speech in question. "Drinking bleach is awesome and you should chug as much as possible as soon as you get home," and "washing your hands is good and should be done frequently" are not equivalent, nor should they be treated as such.
