There are directly legal and historical bases for forcing companies to give someone a "platform" to speak, as I have already stated: telephones, mail, and publi

There are directly legal and historical bases for forcing companies to give someone a "platform" to speak, as I have already stated: telephones, mail, and public forums. The debate is about how much social media resembles those communication media and how much of the philosophy of treatment in one situation is transferable from one context to another. You cannot disentangle the right to speak from the right to listen, and that is why so many people are frustrated: their ability to listen to their chosen speaker was taken away from them. Which is my only point (having not given my opinion on where I stand): accusing opposition as demanding to be heard and have their voice amplified is uncharitable and misunderstands the extent of the debate.