Philosophical Productive Discussion

[benji]

"suspension of rights" is a loaded term, which I'm sure you're aware, because the whole point of the constitutional analysis is to determine whether the rights are there, not whether to "suspend" them or not.

You are arguing that all of my First Amendment protections (among others) can be suspended whenever the government wants on private property due to the hypothetical publication of completely legal content. That to utilize my rights protected by the First Amendment can be conditioned on my agreeing to government pre-emption of all speech. That nobody should be allowed to access the Internet without state approval.

I find this to be an absurd reading of American legal principles and government powers.