Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such a lazy argument that I'm so tired of hearing applied to quasi-public services. Maybe Twitch isn't a great example, but a few social media sites are. They might not be the government, but they're platforms with billions of people on them. Justice Thomas recently pointed out that we'll soon have no choice but to grapple with this distinction and determine how principles like the First Amendment apply to no…
It's not a lazy argument, you're just tired of hearing it. It's actually a very strong argument. "quasi-public", "maybe Twitch isn't a great example", "maybe not legally... yet", "some forthcoming legal doctrine"-- these are weak qualifiers. What are you proposing, exactly? How many users is a service allowed to have before their content moderation policies are nationalized? Somewhat ironically, whatever you're propo…
I assume you're referring to the 1A rights of the corporation, e.g. Twitter's right to decline to publish content it disagrees with. I agree with you there. It's a complex problem. My complaint is more with the argument that only the government can restrict free speech. It's a lazy argument because the reality is far more nuanced than that. For example, consider the fact that AT&T doesn't have the right to drop your phone calls when you start talking about Verizon to the person on the other end of the line.
It's totally fair to talk about the "spirit" of the constitution -- that's why we have the Supreme Court in the first place, to interpret the constitution when its words are not clear. I would also note that the Declaration of Independence doesn't mention any self-evident truth about corporations, but it does describe the rights of the people, and government's role in preserving them. If corporations appear to interfere with those inalienable rights, it's not unreasonable for the government to step in to preserve them.