> What if Bluesky were to set up a hotline which the federal government can call to have any post censored, and makes it known to government actors that it will

> What if Bluesky were to set up a hotline which the federal government can call to have any post censored, and makes it known to government actors that it will act promptly if they want anything removed? > Would that be legal for Bluesky, assuming no coercion from any government actors? Under your assumption of no coercion, yes, it would generally be within Bluesky's First Amendment right of association (by which I mean, association to the content, not to the government) for Bluesky to voluntarily remove content from its servers (or refuse to relay content from other servers) brought to its notice by the federal government for no compensation. There are other ways for governments to meddle that would make specific instances of "call to have any post censored" unconstitutional. If a government official were to secretly pay or otherwise compensate Bluesky for removing posts, then the benefit to the government official of having the posts removed would violate the Emoluments Clause if the official is a member of Congress, might violate a corruption law, and might violate the oath of office if there was one (but I don't know an oath of office has any legal weight). Also, in practice, such a secret payment scheme would create a power imbalance favoring the government official in a way that would make achieving "no coercion" very difficult if not impossible.