Earlier quoted context omitted.
> IMO, if the government isn't using the extraordinary power's granted to them (search, seizure, arrests, fines, imprisonment, etc) against it's citizens strictly for the words they say or write, "free speech" hasn't been violated and it would be incorrect to use the term in that context. "Free speech" is overloaded. There's the abstract concept of "free speech" and then there's the first amendment which specifically…
I know there's technically a distinction, the abstract concept is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the "spirit" of free speech, but I'm not convinced it's useful to make a distinction between the spirit and the law anyway. The concept of government and law is just as abstract. I think it's more accurate to say the first amendment specifically limits _how_ the US government is allowed to censor speech i.e. they…
My use of "abstract" refers to the fact that the first amendment applies only to the US government, and consequently it's more concrete or restricted than the broader "spirit". Any particular "free speech" law is just one concrete instance of the more abstract concept of "free speech". The utility of the distinction is proved by the fact that we can talk about "free speech" laws across countries, but also in that we are currently having a debate about whether large social media networks should adhere to a free speech ethos.
> I think it's more accurate to say the first amendment specifically limits _how_ the US government is allowed to censor speech i.e. they can't use their extraordinary powers to do it. It doesn't say they can't use the same tools and tactics everyone else legally uses to minimize the visibility and impact of certain speech.
I'm not sure what distinction you're making. Specifically I'm not sure what "tactics everyone else legally uses to minimize the visibility and impact of certain speech"--most people don't minimize the visibility and impact of speech. The few who do are generally private platforms, and the US government specifically can't use these same tools. For example, the government can't legally give a platform to a Muslim group but deny that platform to a Jewish group. Additionally, it can't use its extraordinary powers to e.g. order a takedown of an offensive website, but it can't use "ordinary" powers to denying platforms to certain groups either (e.g., Neo-nazis/Antifa can protest in the streets as well as moderate liberals).