zlacker

So if someone criticizes the government, and it responds by saying "We're no longer going to enforce laws protecting this person; anyone who wants to burglarize their home, or rob or kill them, feel free to do so.", that doesn't qualify as violation of free speech as long as the government is not actively initiating or assisting such attacks?

(Genuine question; I obviously don't agree, but I'm curious as to what moral principles you're applying here.)

>>a13692+(OP)
Government ought to have a force monopoly.

Government ought to be “small” (functionally and structurally limited).

Government ought to defend the natural rights of its citizens from physical force initiated by criminals and international aggressors.

A government that does not fulfill these duties is evil. The Constitution clearly prevents the government from using guns to break my free speech. Does it also require the government to use its guns to protect my free speech from criminals? Ethically, this is the government’s duty. If the government isn’t doing this, it lacks a legitimate purpose.

Private entities do not have a duty to protect man’s natural rights. But, it is immoral for them to violate a man’s natural rights. Amazon didn’t violate anyone’s natural rights by cancelling a private contract because of public comments.