[kmeisthax]

It's legal because the 1st Amendment is narrowly drafted to the point of uselessness. Censorship is only the result of actions by the sovereign - i.e. the local legitimate violence monopoly. Any other kind of monopoly? Sorry, that's actually just their freedom of association. And, ironically, their own freedom of speech: Comcast argued in front of courts that any sort of common carrier regulation on Internet traffic would be censoring Comcast.

As for "abhorrent views", I'm of two minds. Many of those "abhorrent views" are themselves calls to commit censorship. I don't think political speech calling for censorship should be protected by the 1st Amendment, because of the chilling effects that speech causes, even if the law itself would be immediately invalidated by SCOTUS. On the other hand, having private actors make the final call on what speech is permissible is also wrong, because we have no judicial recourse should they make a mistake. But there's also a lot of very impermissible conduct - i.e. doxing, spam, etc - that should be illegal, isn't illegal, but is only held at bay because of intermediaries having unlimited censorship power over their own platforms. From the perspective of a court, bringing these platforms into the scope of the 1st Amendment would be a net negative.

[TheCaptain4815]

Well because these banks can only function from the money they borrow from the government, it’s insane they’re allowed to censor 1st amendment protected speech.

[missedthecue]

I don't think banks borrow any money from the government, unless you're thinking of really convoluted things like the department of agriculture partially insuring equipment loans to farmers against default.

That's not borrowing from the gov. and it's not even most banks though.

[mlrtime]

Probably talking about Fedfunds which is the overnight short term lending.

[TheCaptain4815]

Yup. If they want to restrict American citizens from accessing banking, they can do all that lending through private methods.