You're enforcing a false binary here. Twitter as a private company has the right to remove things that it finds abhorrent, such as hate speech (i.e. stating th

You're enforcing a false binary here. Twitter as a private company has the right to remove things that it finds abhorrent, such as hate speech (i.e. stating that jews should be killed, black people should be bred out of existence, etc.). People can put pressure on twitter to change their policies on what they find abhorrent. The people with those views can find or create other places to express them. The argument with 'Twitter as a common carrier' is null and void, because twitter is not an ISP. Twitter clearly falls under "public forum", and is therefore able to state what sort of content it wants to host, and what sort of content it does not. This does not preclude the neonazis finding somewhere else to host their views, like /pol/. Because they can host their views somewhere else, it is not censorship. Think of it like publishing. If a publishing company does not want to publish my book, that is not censorship. I can go to another publishing company, or start my own. If the government states that what I say is wrong, and enforces a purge of it from all libraries, servers, bookshops, media, etc. then that is censorship.