I thank Micheapdx for his clarification of the legal issue. It seems reasonable that any corporation can arbitrarilly suppress whatever speech it desires. This certainly makes a case for caution when it comes to the privatization of such elements of the government such as Social Security or the Post Office.

But wait a minute. Doesn't the government have something to do with this? I give you that the ruling cited took place in 1980 but perhaps this ruling needs to be challenged again. Can it not be argued that the suppression of free speech is still the issue since Borders operates within the confines of the US Government and Virginia State and is not in itself a state or a country? If "Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." could this be interpreted to include the right to sue Borders for abridging the freedom of speech since they exist at the beneficence of the national and state governments? In this way, arent they are a part of the US government and subject to it's laws? Not that the case would be won under the present political climate, wouldn't there be a valid reason for it to brought?

Frank Hamilton