Simionas Blog Post 7

 In her discussion of private and public censorship, Shiffrin writes “Given the size, power, and ubiquity of the state, the state may represent a more daunting threat to freedom of speech than the disparate threats that arise from various and varied private sources” (109). She later follows with “while the government may not permissibly exclude a citizen from citizenship or from elective office on account of his or her political views, a voluntary private association must be able to exclude members on the basis of their thoughts and speech” (109). While I understand and to a good extent agree with both Shiffrin’s points in this section, I wonder if there are instances where private power can overpower public power in regards to how it affects the individuals interacting with it. For instance, sometimes private associations can take on large scales and seem to directly influence an individual's day to day life, as in their social acceptance, well-being, sense of community, much more than the government does, depending on their social status, whereas the government may become more of a distant entity that they attribute less responsibility to for their wellbeing. In these instances, can the private right to exclude become a more daunting threat? 

For instance, let's return to her Boy Scout example on page 97. Shiffrin takes down an argument defending the Boy Scouts’ ability to express a disapproval of homosexuality but provides what she claims is a stronger one to do so through her thinker-based method. However this situation to me, if dealing with a large enough private organization starts to mirror the echo chamber idea Tara brought up in her blog posts in regards to social media. The Boy Scouts’ protected right to express disapproval of homosexuality is closing off certain interactions from the participants in their program. That program may be for the children in it, their only sort of social life for reasons out of their hands (that is all they have time for, its what their parents decide, etc) and thus the organization has decided for them that they will not be able to interact with homosexual peers. I would argue that this strips those participants of many of the benefits free speech is protected for: for the chance to expand, change, express, and in the process workshop our mental beliefs. There are many more instances where private organizations seem to interact with individuals more on a daily basis than their public organizations do, and it seems that where that occurs the weight of private censorship and private organizations’ right to exclusion should start to mirror that of public censorship and organization. However now, the issue of where to draw the line of what private organizations can or cannot censor or exclude seems to mirror our discussion of bright lines last week: can we realistically draw a line between what speech can or can’t be protected for private organizations? Are there instances where private organization power can surpass public organization power, and if so how would that change Shiffrin’s views or arguments?