[dragonwriter]

> No one will argue free speech for that, because you're now consuming someone else's resource (time, mobile minutes, etc) when they explicitly told you not to.

All of the arguments for “free speech” against platform content policies are exactly arguing for consuming someone else's reseources against their expressed direction, so it's provably false that that is sufficient to prevent people from arguing for entitlement based on “free speech”.

[skynet-9000]

In that case, the rights of the (private) service provider are in tension with those of the (also private) individual, so it's a matter for legislation and the courts. Congress has passed laws protecting the speech of the individual within certain types of service providers, i.e. telecom/ISP/website publishers.

[dragonwriter]

> Congress has passed laws protecting the speech of the individual within certain types of service providers, i.e. telecom/ISP/website publishers.

Telecoms, yes, ISPs and Websites, no. FCC adopted regulations under statutory authority it saw as allowing, but not requiring, thatnfor ISPs, but later retracted them. Websites have liability protection for hosts for user content specifically to encourage host moderation of user content, rather than creating an entitlement against such moderation.