the real question is not is there will be an intermediary but hoopewho.we turned to the first amendment space and we needed these people to make good speech useful. we had a very much for line of precedent from other forms of electronic communication that explains the value of having someone serving as intermediary. what is interesting is that, they start off by looking at newspapers. if you look at the newspapers, and they recognize the rule of absolute freedom. they said that newspaper editorial discretion is limited by their ability to attract enough readers to cover their costs. it does not matter if they served as a conduit for other people's speech. that to editorial ability is absolutely perfect. that was reaffirmed in other cases have. it has been said that it does not matter if there is a limited amount of voices. it does not matter if there is private censorship the first amendment is a restriction on the government and not on private actors. it is not that the dangers of private censorship do not exist, but government censorship is worse. to ha