> That's an odd thing to say on a case where the government did absolutely coerce Facebook.

But that's what this case is about. So "absolutely" is an incorrect word. The Supreme Court is currently deciding this.

> Heh, no. The Supreme Court has already ruled on what speech is legal and illegal.

I don't know how this statement refutes what I said. See NRA vs Vullo. Just claim a 1st Amendment violation to avoid legal investigations. You're also implying that law doesn't change somehow.

> you'll have to come up with a more specific example than that.

Why? You provided a perfect example. Meaning there are scenarios where suppression is justified.

> It is only a First Amendment violation if companies are people.

No. Newspaper companies are not people and have 1st Amendment protections. They have editorial discretion over how and what is printed in their newspapers. This is content curation. Social media companies also have editorial discretion over the content they host and how that content is presented to its users. Again, this is what is being litigated in NetChoice v Paxton and Moody v NetChoice. The government of Texas and Florida are saying that social media sites must host content they find politically distasteful. That would be like the government saying the National Review has to print a pro-Biden op-ed, or that they cannot remove comments written by users at the bottom of articles.

> companies that basically control the digital town square.

They do own the digital town square, in a free marketplace. It's being suggested to you that these ideas are being "censored" but private entities cannot censor, only the government can. What is really happening is that these ideas are unpopular, and are losing in a marketplace of ideas. And so certain groups are appealing to the government to interfere into a free marketplace to force unpopular ideas on people.

> And I own a company, by the way. Do not assume things about me.

No where in my responses did I suggest you don't own a company.

> Isn't that the exact situation?

Again, no. You don't have a constitutional right to make a social media platform host what you say. You have a right to say it if you want to, but they have 1st Amendment freedom of press protections. To be clear, I'm not saying I think this is a good idea, and things should be this way, I think things should largely be un-moderated on the internet, I'm simply stating what I understand to be true about the rules of the game that is currently being played.

One last comment because I'm not sure I articulated it well: You said that if emergencies are used as an excuse to curtail 1st Amendment rights, there will always be emergencies. In your mind, the pandemic was the emergency. And suppression of information about things related to the pandemic online was the curtailing of 1st Amendment rights. If what you're saying is true, then logically, there will always be another "emergency" and what I am asking you is, how do you know that "a pandemic where the government lied and censored people" isn't simply the next emergency? This concept is being fed to people and they are supporting the idea of curtailing freedom of the press' 1st Amendment rights under the disguise that 1st Amendment freedom of speech rights are being infringed. If what I am saying is true, and no such free speech violations are occurring, but instead free press violations are occurring, then you are participating in the very suppression you are telling me you are afraid of because of a contrived "emergency".