Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please read the first amendment: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It precisely says the government cannot limit your speech and is intentionally silent about everyone else.
Nowhere in your quote does it say it only applies to government. It only says that government won't make laws restricting it. It is intentionally elevating freedom of speech to a precept that is fundamental to the constitution of the state. You have people in this thread asserting that freedom of speech is an inherent right while simultaneously supporting a corporation's ability to infringe that right and suppress sp…
> It only says that government won't make laws restricting it.
These are the same thing. Further, private corporations have editorial control over what they allow in their publications or on their platforms which is also free speech. Or are you suggesting that the New York Times is required by The First Amendment to publish every letter it receives? That a website is required to leave scam comments or spam up? The no corporate owned platform can moderate in any way?