>I love the irony of this statement. How is it irony? The first amendment: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitin

>I love the irony of this statement. How is it irony? The first amendment: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Has only been expanded by the courts to apply to all levels and branches of government, and they're not allowed to outsource (14thS1) it and very clearly says that the government cannot abridge speech. Which is exactly what DHS was conspiring to do with big tech. People get free speech. The government does get a say in the matter. People who are acting members of the government being held accountable for violation of the 1st amendment is a great way to illustrate the difference between free speech and the first amendment. If this were only big tech/other companies the first amendment wouldn't apply and your comment would have merit, but with the DHS involved this is just wildly unconstitional and there's nothing ironic about it.