Point out the straw men, please. I think I argued against sentences you actually wrote. I introduced Twitter into all this so I could make specific examples that aren't as loaded as Amazon/Parler, because I think your position is relying on being politically loaded and falls apart easily without that component. It does matter what people in other countries think Free Speech is, because the comparison with countries where Free Speech is actually missing makes the distinction between that, and this, clear. That distinction is a point I have made at least twice and you have refused to engage with.

> "No, the US Government (local, state, federal) cannot put you in prison for voicing opinions, no matter how unpopular they may be.

I think you are trying to make the point that the US Constitution says the Government may not do that. I am trying to make the point that the Government has the power to do that, and is the only organization with the power to do that, and that they actually do do that in certain circumstances - e.g. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-teenage-isis-supporter-sentence... - imprisoned for running a pro-ISIS Twitter account. Given that the Government has the power to imprison you where private organizations don't, and that the Government will do so for certain (e.g. pro-terrorism) speeches now, it is important to make the distinction that a Congressperson asking AT&T if they intend to carry Fox News in future is different to the Government arresting a Fox News journalist, CEO, or AT&T CEO, and that the difference is large.

> "Yes, private organization can deplatform, censor, and silence any opinions they disagree with."

Yes they can, I haven't denied it. What I have said is that you can use your freedoms to start new private organizations where you can post opinions you agree with and silence opinions you disagree with, or walk about with a billboard in the town square. You have the right to speak, you don't have the right to a large audience on a popular platform. That's why private organizations deplatforming you is different even if the Government is leaning (which I don't agree they are), and the difference matters.

> "What we clearly have here is a case of a political party, in control of Congress, seeking a way to circumvent the US Constitution (specifically the 1st Amendment) by nakedly intimidating private organizations into enacting censorship on their behalf, to be perpetrated against said political party's political enemies."

No we don't clearly have that. We clearly have a couple (two) members of Congress sending a form letter to a dozen media companies asking 7 fairly trivial questions. If you're going to claim "nakedly intimidating" please point out the intimidating wording in the letter. Since there isn't any, you can't, so I predict you're not going to respond to this bit in good faith either.

> "That is flatly wrong, and should be viewed as Government attempting to censor political enemies... because that is what it is!"

I am not going to copy-paste the entire letter here, but following up on an event which happened by writing a letter asking if Roku did anything to support or stop carrying media about the event, is not flatly wrong, it's a normal and expected kind of investigation. It seems very likely that the media companies in question will send back lawerly responses saying "we do not filter content, we have a fair use policy, we were monitoring events and took (some/no) actions" and that will be all that comes of it.