Sure, a constitution is just a formalization of those tradeoffs. But the US Constitution has nothing to do with this article or the parallel current events.
Sorry, let me elaborate. You said that the difference between my speed limit example and (presumably) the article/current events is that the latter is addressed by the Constitution. I disagree with that assertion — the Constitution specifically forbids abridgement of free speech by the government, not by private entities.
You can take the position that private entities should uphold the "spirit" of the First Amendment even though they're not compelled to. But that's a moral argument, not a legal one.
Gotcha, that's why I added the bit about going through due process vs a private entity (especially an entity that runs an entire platform) deciding your speech is banned with no oversight.
This issue gets complicated, as stated cureently in your post, is of course correct.
I guess the conversation I want to have is a completely separate one: these companies have reached a massive scale, a scale that you could argue is of government proportions, and hence maybe should in some instances be handled as such.
Should Google or Apple get to decide who has free speech, at their scale?
I agree with you 100% - this is as of today a moral argument. My follow up question is, should it be?
I'll add that most of my objection here is to the comment to which I originally replied. I really dislike the "there's no objectively correct line, so we shouldn't draw a line at all" point of view.
As to your follow up question — I think the root of the issue is not "is it right for a company to make speech decisions" but "is it right for a company to wield so much power over public discourse?" IMO it should remain a moral issue, and we should simply aggressively break up entities that attain "public square" status.
If it did, we'd have to go through proper process to get the constitution amended.