Some people just don't understand that there isn't such "free speech" apart from the first amendment right to free speech (others need to keep things simple because the world's complexity makes them go cross-eyed). Have any of them defined it? Where does it come from? The trees? The air? Aether? God? What even is it? No, "free speech" independent from the 1st is an empty term. (Hell, they call it that rather than something else specifically to vaguely invoke-without-invoking the first).
It's a term used when a Trumpist or Trumpist-adjacent wants to complain about not being able to force someone else to carry or broadcast their statements, aka, they couldn't follow social media rules so they get banned and that one single platform will no longer host their content at their will.
The physical comparison would be: you choose to allow a house guest to eat dinner with you, but your house rules apply. The guest hops on the table and starts lighting his farts, but it turns out he didn't know he had diahhrea brewing. You make him stand in a garbage bag and then carry him to the sidewalk, where you leave him. This person starts squawking about how they violated their "free speech".
Apparently, to
@aociswundumho, the pants-shitter is standing on the moral high ground. (And pants-shitting is a great analogy for Trumpists pumping out QAnon and the Big Lie).
Does
@NatMorton get the problem?
It's stupid in so many directions. If they have a moral right-but-not-right to speak without any impedement, then so does the business/service/etc they want to force to host their own speech.
Twitter hosts other peoples' speech (for free, isn't it?) on certain terms, and they want to pretend they have some right-but-not-right to make Twitter host whatever they say?
