There's plenty of speech that could be banned that might be a "net positive" for the world, but you are setting the precedent that banning speech is fine, and you will find that it won't be long until lots of speech you do like is also banned.
Nothing banned was free speech.
Do you think any software platform owned by China or Russia allows free speech?
If so, I cordially invite you to take a long trip to either country and attempt to exercise your free speech vigorously on social media and see what happens.
Has your company ever done business with a foreign government or a local government that has gone against the President's wishes? Congrats you can be banned from doing business in the US now
In general we've understood, & the courts have consistently held, that those licenses & restrictions can't violate constitutional rights, except in very rare circumstances. A lot of people are contorting themselves into extraordinary shapes to try to demonstrate such circumstances, without success
The typical contortion is, as always, "the speech we're banning isn't actually speech, and anyway other governments do it too." a comically self-negating argument
It’s not a ban on free speech it’s a ban on software owned by hostile states to disrupt or destroy the US and its people. And they wouldn’t hesitate to do so if they thought it would work.
Both platforms have far reaching consequences to our freedoms and security.
It's not a question of "a ban on free speech;" there is no such test. Govt shall not restrict *speech,* or the press. You're wrong about the ownership structure ofc, but it's irrelevant-- it's not a distinction the constitution makes. If there's a concern about non-speech harm, show it & regulate it
