They were requesting it, not demanding it, though they probably threw their weight around in ways that are illegal in "persuading" the companies to censor...
The Constitution binds them from demanding it, but what if a company "just agrees with them" and censors people? They can reference the establishment doctrine, if that's a thing, to say "it's OUR site, we can do what we want. Don't like it? You're free to go somewhere else."
But here's the thing regarding these Big Tech Social Media orgs: it's NOT their site, it belongs to the TAXPAYERS.
If we declass the documents surrounding their funding & startup (In-Q-Tel, CIA, DARPA, etc) it will be made clear that they are not "private companies who can make their own rules", but they are in fact PLATFORMS owned by We The People.
They were requesting it, not demanding it, though they probably threw their weight around in ways that are illegal in "persuading" the companies to censor...
The Constitution binds them from demanding it, but what if a company "just agrees with them" and censors people? They can reference the establishment doctrine, if that's a thing, to say "it's OUR site, we can do what we want. Don't like it? You're free to go somewhere else."
But here's the thing regarding these Big Tech Social Media orgs: it's NOT their site, it belongs to the TAXPAYERS.
If we declass the documents surrounding their funding & startup (In-Q-Tel, CIA, DARPA, etc) it will be made clear that they are not "private companies who can make their own rules", but they are in fact PLATFORMS owned by We The People.
Created and made on our dime = ours.