I'd guess you could point at the metaphor implied in the word "de-platforming." Free speech doesn't necessitate that every person gets a stage and a microphone.

I'd guess you could point at the metaphor implied in the word "de-platforming." Free speech doesn't necessitate that every person gets a stage and a microphone. If we were in a physical auditorium and the president started encouraging violence among the audience, is it a violation of free speech for the theatre to cut his mic? That said, I'm still conflicted about this. I think it's possible to believe both that 1) there is a material threat of violence from continuing to give the president the equivalent of a giant megaphone, and 2) giving private corporations unilateral decisions-making power over who gets a platform is probably not in the long-term best interests of democracy.