DCS Sending Legal Notice To Reviewer (Golden Sound) Over an Old Review of Their Bartok DAC

@cleeds 

There is much, much more to the First Amendment than that. It actually has five major pillars.

 True, my comment was worded poorly, but the point is that it only applies to government restrictions not private parties.  And in this case we’re specifically talking about speech not religion, the press, assembly or redress of grievances.

jastralfu

... the point is that it only applies to government restrictions not private parties ...

That is simply not true. The government cannot make any law that impinges on freedom of speech. For example, it can’t pass a law that says you can’t criticize Audiogon. That would be restricting your First Amendment rights.

(Strictly speaking, the government could pass a law saying you can’t criticize Audiogon. But such a law would be unconstitutional and would not withstand scrutiny in the courts.)

And in this case we’re specifically talking about speech not religion, the press, assembly or redress of grievances.

A YouTuber opining on the Internet is, functionally, the press. He’s protected under the First Amendment. But even if it were your post - a random, one-time post - you’d still be protected.

Of course this doesn't apply outside the US. As Americans, the First Amendment is a precious gift.

@cleeds not sure what the disconnect here is.  I’ve stated that the first amendment only applies to government restrictions not private parties.  What you responded with seems to agree with that statement. 
 

The government cannot make any law that impinges on freedom of speech. For example, it can’t pass a law that says you can’t criticize Audiogon. That would be restricting your First Amendment rights.

this is exactly what I stated.  It does not apply to private parties, e.g. Audiogon can remove any post it wants and there is no legal redress or violation of first amendment rights.

i vehemently disagree that any YouTuber should be, by default, considered press just because they have content.  Creating content and being press is not remotely the same thing.

But even if it were your post - a random, one-time post - you’d still be protected.

only against government restrictions.  YouTube can remove anything it wants for any reason.

jastralfu

Audiogon can remove any post it wants ... YouTube can remove anything it wants for any reason.

Of course.

The First Amendment has no bearing here as this issue is between two private parties.

The First Amendment offers multiple protections for actions taken against you by a private party.

@cleeds if you are referring to libel or slander then yes you have first amendment protections against private party suits assuming what you wrote or said is demonstrably true.  
I finally see the disconnect we were having, I was speaking within the context of, for example, a forum removing any content it wants.  Within the context of dcs and goldenear and claims of libel or slander, goldenear certainly has protections as long as what was posted/written is true (or at least not libel or slander, I don’t think it is)