> Wouldn't forcing Facebook

Feel free to argue that Facebook should be allowed to censor others. But it is still censorship.

It is perfectly possible for someone to both think that Facebooks actions should be allowed, and are also censorship at the same time.

If you are yelling or distributing pamphlets in my backyard and I don't like the message, and I ask you to move, I'm not sure you would refer to it as "censorship".

Sure, that would be you censoring certain types of speech on your property.

It would have a pretty small effect on other people's ability to engage in speech. But it is an effect none the less.

If you owned a huge amount of property, though, then this would be a larger amount of censorship.

We agree then, this is "censorship", but has nothing to do with "freedom of speech" as codified in US law.

> but has nothing to do with "freedom of speech"

It absolutely has something to do with the general concept of freedom of speech, actually.

Freedom of speech is a concept, not just a law.

This is exactly the reason non governmental entities should be allowed to do as they please within the confines of Constitutionality. If they aren't allowed that freedom, then they aren't free, and you have a bigger problem. In this sense, censorship is free speech, as you point out. But it's still a form of censorship. It's just censorship that should be allowed and encouraged like any other form of speech or expression by non governmental entities.

EDIT: (At least, that's how it works in the US. Other nations, other laws.)