Here is my argument for why access to digital services should be considered a civil right equal to access to physical services.

As a Jewish person and as a gay person I am protected under anti-discrimination law (varied for being gay).

A store cannot ban me for either.

A store could not, for example, have a policy that bans 'immoral behavior' on their property and then selectively enforce this only on gay couples who happen to either simply walk in or who hold hands or show affection of any kind.

No liberal perspective would agree.

If this happened to me I would be able to argue that my civil rights had been violated.

Even without official legal protections, this would be enough to file a lawsuit, launch legislation and create public outcry until it was officially illegal to do so.

In the same way I couldn't be denied a cell phone plan, or a TV or internet service access or a newspaper *because* I am Jewish. A company cannot say, 'We don't serve Jews." They also cannot show up at my house to install broadband, see my yarmulke and refuse to do so.

There is certainly a libertarian argument for why companies should be free to do business however they choose, but that is not the reality of the law as it is today.

There is a very good reason why the libertarian argument against the Civil Rights Act failed.

Most agreed public services should not discriminate. But private services were controversial because libertarians argued the government should not be interfering with private business decisions.

So why did that reasonable argument fail?

A critical mass of businesses in the south and throughout other areas of the country for different populations, chose to specifically refuse service to black Americans, as well as other groups.

It became so pervasive black Americans had fewer and fewer options.

They simply could not participate in public life equally. The conditions were arbitrary and burdensome. There were black businesses but they were limited and arbitrarily restricted as well.

There was no option for market forces to intervene due to artificial suppression.

Because of this the only choice was to federally prevent businesses from discriminating at all based on race in order to force open the markets and allow natural competition and fair participation to take place.

We are in this same situation today with political affiliation.

As we have watched multiple times, its not just one service or one website. When a person is determined to be unacceptable due to their beliefs they are banned in a domino effect. Usually starting with all social media, then web hosting, then email services and so on.

On the individual level it looks like companies choosing to distance themselves from one or two highly disruptive people causing too much chaos and harming their business.

But because of the nature of the left, it does not stop there. It becomes a *category* of people.

Soon rather than one lunatic spouting death threats, the policy of 'dangerous' or 'hate' morphs into anyone sharing views the left find offensive. They label them as policy violations, ban them and the domino effect begins based on this accusation.

The consequence of this is that a person can lose the ability to not only engage in public communication, but also banking, commerce, email communication necessary for access to most online services, webhosting etc. A person can be denied access to participation.

But again, its not an issue of a selection of individuals, but one of a category of people.

This is where political affiliation comes in.
Political affiliation is like religion in that it is a set of strongly held beliefs organized into groups and inseparable to the person.

I can no more choose to be conservative than I can choose to be Jewish in terms of public perception, similar to being gay or ethnic or racial distinctions. Other people define me. It doesn't matter how I define myself.

Also, I cannot separate myself from my core values.

There are many topics conservatives cannot discuss openly without violating the left's definitions of hate or violence under leftwing managed social media platforms.

Again, once labeled all platforms end up banning you too regardless of your actions.

As a conservative I essentially cannot participate in a variety of public topics without violating Twitter's rules, subjectively and selectively applied, whereas a liberal person can.

Similar to a gay vs. straight person showing affection in the above mentioned store.

Also, even if I cease all political engagement, the fact that I used to engage in an ever-growing list of unacceptable views is enough to permanently ban me as well, even years later.

I have no option to behave in a way that allows me to stay within the rules.

All social media and the majority of major platforms and businesses have all agreed in their TOS that any violation at any time is enough to remove you, including speech or photos etc., taken outside of the platform or even outside of the internet. Being filmed by someone else.

I argue that Twitter is the central hub of political and news communication for the world and that when denied access you are denied the ability to participate in global communication and information access.

You can get it elsewhere, but you cannot participate.

Similarly facebook is the central hub for family and friends to connect, share a decade of history and photos and memories together and maintain those connections. LinkedIn is the hub for professional development and so on.

They are distinct and central services.

The water company cannot turn off your water and permanently ban you from ever using their service again, with every other water company doing the same because you attended a Trump rally.

The private business/public utility discrimination issue is muddy.

Because a person can be denied access through a joint effort of many monopolies or dominant corporations simultaneously, there is no free market force for them as an individual or a member of a group to fight back.

There is no 'starting your own' either, as we saw with Parler.

The internet is not an optional tool you can live without any longer. It is a primary central source of nearly all services reasonable people need to live. These companies often with dual presence should not be able to take action online they could not take in real life.

I argue that digital services should align with physical stores in this situation.

I also argue that political affiliation, real or perceived, should not be grounds for removal.

I argue that to prevent the above, open platforms should not be able to ban legal content.

It is both an individual right to choose services to use that are open to the public and to participate in communication and commerce, as long as it is legal.

I do not believe platforms should be held responsible for the content of their users.

I see this as a new world which we did not anticipate and we were not prepared for.

We never imagined we would have to worry that if we attended a political rally we might lose our access to email or our ability to connect with our family on facebook.

The argument of other services is insufficient as well. We have well-established standards that you cannot demand a gay person or a Jewish person go elsewhere if a public organization does not wish to serve them.

It is not reasonable to make this singular exclusion.

There is always an important debate around religious liberty and the requirement of participation in events or activities you morally oppose. But Twitter or facebook allowing content they morally oppose is not a valid comparison.

My solution:

I propose a couple things that would, I think and hope, resolve this issue for everyone.

1) We need to include Political Affiliation as a protected status. It is as meaningful and inseparable as religion and its used against peopled in the same sadistic way.

This means that you cannot overtly discriminate against a person based on *any* political affiliation. You cannot get them fired. You cannot secretly code their political views into your anti-whatever policies.

No discrimination.
As long as it is legal, it is a right.

2) We need to include Political Affiliation in hate crime legislation.

You cannot harass, stalk, doxx, surround someone's house or physically assault them because they are or you think they are a member of a political group you hate.

3) We need an Internet Bill of Rights. The internet *is* our public square, it is our system of communication, it is our centralized platform for life. It needs to be treated just like physical life.

We should have a right to access and use public services.

4) A publisher can edit content, a platform cannot. This does not apply to *illegal* content or adult content regarding age access laws.

It does not matter what a person says, if its legal.

If you want to publish a website, its different.

Although it remains a question if a website could refuse to publish work from a Jew or a gay person.

5) Anti-trust and monopoly laws should adapt to understand centralized systems like Twitter and Google and Facebook rather than pretending they are equal with Hotmail or the chatroom of a forum.

At a certain size or usage, the utility question should come into play.

6) If a company is publicly traded then it should be held to the same standards physical companies are.

Its not My Blog Dot Net Dot TV. Its the cable company and it needs regulation because of its size and its influence.

No one can argue the global influence of Twitter.

It is not a comfortable argument, but I believe that simply mocking the notion of its importance is defeating the purpose.

Its not just a website or a series of websites. Its not just crazies being kicked off for sharing hate speech.

More importantly, it is an issue of individual and group rights. We are facing an absolute overwhelmingly dominant power arbitrarily decide that we - YOU - and me - should not be allowed to engage in modern life at all because of how we feel about social/political topics.

I think its time we face the reality of this and even though it goes against libertarian instincts, I adamantly argue we are facing a similar situation as we did when the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Collective, targeted suppression based on narrow characteristics.