>so it pressures corporations to ban speech on its behalf, with an implied threat they will will hurt the corporation in some way if it does not comply. Which

>so it pressures corporations to ban speech on its behalf, with an implied threat they will will hurt the corporation in some way if it does not comply. Which is not actually legal. It's been found repeatedly in court that the government can't work hand in glove with a third party to violate civil rights. Otherwise the FBI would work hand in glove with third parties to beat people with rubber hoses until they confess.