I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but there have been _widespread_ proposals that would require social media sites to carry speech that they object to. The

I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but there have been _widespread_ proposals that would require social media sites to carry speech that they object to. These proposals were so widespread in some GOP circles that they actually became state law in 2 states (Florida and Texas) before being struck down as being a blatantly unconstitutional violation of the first amendment for being compelled speech. Note that in both contexts "struck down" does not refer to a final ruling, but rather an injunction that will remain in place until the final disposition of the case. https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/01/texas-social-media-law-blocked/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/12/01/texas-social-media-l... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/30/florida-social-media-law-trump/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/30/florida... And the interpretation of the law as "compelling speech" is not just mine alone. The federal judge that issued the preliminary injunction in Florida described it this way: > The legislation compels providers to host speech that violates their standards—speech they otherwise would not host—and forbids providers from speaking as they otherwise would. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.371253/gov.uscourts.flnd.371253.113.0_1.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.37...