The concept of free speech has nothing to do with governments or private institutions. The legal differences between those entities has nothing to do with the general concept.
The concept, no; however, freedom of speech also covers Facebook's freedom to not provide a platform if they choose to do so.
You cannot make me say, write, or publish something I don't agree with; freedom of speech is also the freedom to NOT speak. This extends to individuals and platforms both.
In WW2, newspapers were controlled by the invaders; they were told what to publish, even if the people behind it disagreed.
This confounds the difference between a platform and a publisher. If you chose what to publish, you're a publisher. That means you chose to speak, or not to.
A platform does not chose, but merely let's people speak -- or if it doesn't it interferes with free speech.
>The concept of free speech has nothing to do with governments or private institutions.
But the manner in which governments can affect free speech is very much broader, because they can criminalize and regulate it in a way that is generally binding on all societal participants.
Saying that free speech has nothing to do with governments is like saying making contracts is nothing to do with governments: except that the government includes the judicial branch that decides disputes over contracts.
> Saying that free speech has nothing to do with governments is like saying making contracts is nothing to do with governments
The concept has absolutely nothing to do with governments. If you were the only person in the world living alone on an island, the concept would still exist.
That some entity deals with the concept, or doesn't, does not change this.
You cannot make me say, write, or publish something I don't agree with; freedom of speech is also the freedom to NOT speak. This extends to individuals and platforms both.
In WW2, newspapers were controlled by the invaders; they were told what to publish, even if the people behind it disagreed.