> So the legal scope of the literal first amendment doesn’t help the discussion on what people and companies should be doing.
If you're going to go down this road, then you must address government compelled speech, and the limits on the control of private property. I've found that the "private corporations are censoring me" crowd, don't want to engage with this obvious outcome, or pay lip service by saying, "Make [insert big tech company here] is a utility!", again without thinking through the implications.
The compelled speech problem is obvious. Give me your car, I want to put a bumper sticker on it. If you don't let me, or you take it off, you're censoring me.
This is an absurd request, it's your car, you can control what goes on it. Same if I demand to have a book club meet in your living room. It's your living room. Just because you invite some people over, doesn't mean that everyone has a right to come in. It's private property, and you can express yourself by who you let in, and who you don't. Twitter, Facebook, etc are no different. They're private property. No one has a right to have an account and demand an audience.
Now let's take the utility argument, since a utility would mean that everyone needs to be allowed right? Well, a utility is a highly regulated government monopoly. These regulations increase the barrier to entry into these spaces, and effectively eliminate all competition. In fact, protected monopoly status is often the trade for utility status.
These concerns of expression versus private property rights are new, they've existed from very beginning. While the prohibitions on government, but not private actions, may sometimes be frustrating, it's a workable, and consistent, solution.