Many keyboards have been worn out debating about the difference between the first amendment and free speech, but can we isolate to one case or the other here and set that issue aside in one thread?
I enjoy splitting hairs too, but I feel that the distinction between government and platform authority, and Europe and US law, would be used by either side of the porn-deplatforming-supporter and hate-speech-deplatforming-supporter dichotomy when convenient, so is not really a relevant distinction. We can probably locate similar proposals from each of the government/commercial (authority) and porn/hate-speech (content) quadrants, and observe the same dichotomy of reactions.
I feel these are all just justifications that people will deploy when applicable to the tribe they are defending, they don’t explain away the tribes.
That link is more relevant. I don't mean to split hairs. Different nations (cultures? belief systems?) will feel differently about them and make different decisions. I don't think that a discussion that doesn't separate them out will end up anywhere productive.
So when debating the merits of government policy, we can’t talk about Utah and France in the same conversation? I understand that this would make it harder to fit into local tribalist conflicts.
Your tired argument falls flat.
Yes, the first admenement applies to government, but when government and private companies are so unified in task and purpose, as well as value exchange, the distinction between the two is meaningless.
So no “muh private companies” holds zero water. At all.
Many keyboards have been worn out debating about the difference between the first amendment and free speech, but can we isolate to one case or the other here and set that issue aside in one thread?