Try yelling that magic F word in a movie theater, and then cry free speech. See what happens.
You're getting way off topic.
In short, Free speech can be curtailed (and more, it has been so) when there is imminent danger, even if it is stupid, wrong, hateful, or otherwise disagreeable, so sayeth SCOTUS.
Gee, mister, ya think so? Say, what else is illegal... oh wait I wrote as much in my message which you either didn't read or pretend now not to have read:
As for the crocodile tears mid-message where you wrote "riots and insurrection" you know illegal things are illegal - just like if someone threatens physical violence in person then to do so digitally ANYWHERE is in the eyes of the law the exact same thing. This was so 100 years ago - it's so even now.
Yet stupid, wrong, "hateful" and other snowflake-triggering speech yeah go ahead argue that before any court worth its salt that that should be somehow made illegal, good luck.
You weren't around when the Communications Decency Act of 1996 came into play, where Strom Thurmond and Ed Zorinsky were trying to curtail use of all internet activities, both public and private, because they disagreed with content that was being posted, and doing it in the name of "decency for the children" (similar to the same excuse being used for anti-LGBTQ actions and issues with school boards now). The Reds and others weren't so concerned with public and private platforms when they got that through Congress, despite the fact that things were more decentralized at that point, with USENET, WAIS, Gopher, and everyone migrating from mailing lists and LISTSERV to using some new fangled technology called NCSA Mosaic, which came along to being Netscape.
That act came along and was passed because those in decentralized "public spaces" (being put below) were (as you put it) "abusing their platform". No argument was made for it then when that side passed that law. Now they are up in arms over the very thing they were silent about. Again, have to love that hypocrisy.
I will paraphrase Jesse Lee Peterson here: you just said a lot of words, but they didn't make any sense at all.
I don't know those specific cases neither do I care. My point still stands: de facto public forums, public means of communications (Nearly all of them!) moved to private platforms, networks, or other services that facilitate such activities. Yet by the magic of judicial trickery and partisan bull excrement long live doublethink. Doublethink that should for everyone concerned be eradicated.
The problem you have here is where public property ends and private property begins. As with the Castle Doctrine, once a person steps onto a homeowner's property or a business owner's property, it is no longer a "public space" or a "public forum", as you are now engaging with someone or that business on their grounds, territory, and property, where their rules hold sway. There is no "public space" in that aspect. If you want "public space", then you need to go ply your woes in something that is taxpayer funded. Those social media companies are NOT taxpayer funded, unless you can show evidence to prove otherwise.
In short, that olive branch rings hollow, because it is made out of false assumptions.
Ok, let me do a practical rundown here, end to end:
- we use privately developed devices to communicate, covered by patents, often "tied" (like iPhone) to user accounts hence full life cycle control over a device you pretty much "lease" from a company and own... yeah you can keep it if they brick it, but it's a brick
- the software running on them, behind the eons long EULA written by ace lawyers is not even yours as in ye olden software licenses that gave you at least SOME ownership, this is a service that is private and like the phone can be withdrawn
- you use a cell phone carrier - or an ISP, both a private, running communications to and from you the user trough private cell towers and fibre cables running locally and across the globe
- you pay for all of the above with a commercial bank/card/other payment service, which too (as recent examples have shown) can be blocked if you become too hot of a potato. Not the criminal kind - the to "too hot politically" kind.
- Now then, all those hurdles theoretically cleared - do say kind sir: on what "NOT taxpayer funded" platform, messaging board, IM service, content hosting service or whatever else do you communicate on? Why that's private too.
Summarum: end to end, from you the nameless faceless person in the crowd to and from whoever/whatever person or audience you are trying to reach ... the road is private, paved with fine print, EULAs, asterisks and what's most problematic: political bias hiding behind the rosy pink innocent as a summer child two letter word "private company".
However this supposed innocense - as exposed in recent leaks (Twitter files) and leaks pretty much over the last years paints a much more grim reality: political control, partisanship, false neutrality, editorial control, censorship, election meddling, and in the long run even geopolitics.
Now you may disagree with me and keep on peddling the "but but private company but but NoT tAxPAyER fUnDEd" nonsense but in the end like I said it's either a level playing field for all or just like that poor jew about to be sent to Auschwits you may now say "First, they took the communists - but I was not a communist".
Funny side note: Poland! You see they have a very... let's call it aggressive, kinda right wing, very pro-Westen pro-Nato but also pro-Poland attitude. Guess what: from now on every UNFAIRLY deleted facebook post - gets Zuck a hefty fine. Why? Because free speech kurrwa mac! Because try shutting a pole's opinion and get shafted for it. That's their definition of how a private company operating in public space should be held accountable.
I'll remember that whenever I look at the featured article of Jet magazine in 1955, showing the mutilated body of Emmett Till, and chalk his death down to being "normal", let alone explaining to my mixed race children that something so hateful is considered "normal".
Gee, what else may you have to explain to them? That some bearded pants-tucked-into-socks wahhabist nut would also call them "infidels"? Poor you. Or how about this: some parent may have to explain that "white guilt" thing, because some emptyheaded face on a screen said they are born guilty.
Grow up, man up, and realize this: as long as man exists - so does infinite stupidity.
I am for example right now putting up with yours. The difference is that I would never shut anyone up for thinking less of their opionion. I will repeat ad nauseam: "hate", stupidity, and disagreement in general should always be confronted by opposing ideas and be put under the light of public criticism... as any normal society should.
And never be shoved under the rug, or whisked away with the words Private Company (r) (TM)
Therefore you would enjoy feeding the proverbial troll, giving them the attention they want and crave. That is the difference between "you and your ilk" (again, your words) and I; my time and efforts are best spent elsewhere, denying them of the luxury of the attention they crave. When they and their speech doesn't affect me, their efforts fall flat, while others, by confronting them, allow it to flourish, because they are getting that attention. Perhaps a rethink of your action is in order.
Then why are you even talking to me?
Public discourse existed more than you can ever trace your whole genetic lineage back to. See the sun above your head? Romans had a saying about it. Go look it up.
