> He is more concerned with upholding the principle of the first amendment than supporting the ideology of the moment. Supressing information because its not convenient at the moment is the very definition of hack journalism. Something he wants no part of.

This is a pretty uncharitable read. The Intercept's issue with Greenwald's article is not that it is "not convenient," but that Greenwald doesn't adequately support his own conclusions on a story with tenuous evidence. That's not hack journalism; that's journalism. Journalists and editors are obligated to review stories and ask the question "is what we are reporting true? is it relevant? is it timely?" and if the answer to any of those is "no" or "we're not sure," to hold off. THAT'S the standard that The Intercept is using, and that's where Greenwald fell short. Anything less is the very definition of hack journalism.

How does the First Amendment come into play in a situation wherein a private corporation making an internal decision regarding a corporate asset?

Not upholding the first amendment; upholding the principle of the first amendment, that is, the first amendment doesn't create a right, it protects one that we all already have. The Bill of Rights are based on natural rights, ones we have by benefit of being alive, one of which is free speech. The First Amendment concerns itself with a very small corner of that universe, but the rest of it is ours, and should remain free.

The founders never imagined a situation where a very few private citizens would have the power to censor the speech of millions of others. Nothing even remotely similar to that existed at the time and there was nothing to suggest it could ever exist. The US Constitution is also a minimalist document so it wasn't concerned with enforcing behavior between private citizens.

There is a concerted effort by the establishment through PR campaigns by think tanks, bot networks, and major media outlet connections, to push the narrative that free speech is dangerous and should be curtailed. They are first starting with pressure and leverage on private outlets, while simultaneously floating the idea that there should be legal limitations on online speech. It's all part of the same effort.

Furthermore there are a few private outfits that have near a near monopoly on public speech, so they have the effect of censorship.

Fair point. But this is not just the Intercept. This is multiple outlets all letting their partisan affiliation interfere with their reporting. Greenwald has been bothered by this for a long while now, along with a growing list: Andrew Sullivan, Matt Taibbi, just to name a few.