[oceanplexian]

The text doesn’t just say make no law but also prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If the government makes some kind of implicit threat, for example that regulators might not look at a private company the same way if it doesn’t choose to comply with a request to censor someone, that’s clearly an infringement. The legislature doesn’t need to specifically pass a law banning speech for the actions of the government to be unconstitutional.

[freejazz]

The text clearly means that the law cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof. It's not saying the law can only not establish a religion, and then, the government, in general cannot prohibit the free exercise. It says congress cannot make a law abridging the free exercise of speech.