No, it's not unconstitutional. Government officials are allowed to voice their opinion.
Why pass laws limiting speech when you can have your lackey friends in SV do it? It's a coercion tactic similar to what police do since they're in a position of power.
Would you be ok if they brought in the local restaurant owner and asked them why they served transgender people and when they were going to stop them from spreading trans culture inside their business?
I agree that elected officials shouldn't try to make an end-run around the 1st Amendment by threatening to regulate companies if they don't censor on behalf of those officials.
When they do, shouldn't we should place the blame at the feet of those elected officials, not the companies they're attempting to extort?
"But it's ok to threaten action if Trump isn't removed from platforms?" Can you show me where the government threatened action if Trump was not removed from these platforms?
There is no double standards. Governments wield the power of state sanctioned violence and their ability to use that force to demand actions from private entities should be limited where ever possible. You are conflating private and government entities and they are really not comparable under any credible view especially that of the constitution.
Anyone that believes in the first amendment should be very against governments being able to determine content on private platforms.
"I find it hilarious that years of being against "big business" democrats are now the one's championing monopolies and in bed with everyone in Silicon Valley" This is not a political party issue, its a constitutional one.
If you have government officials bringing executives and having hearings asking Zuckerberg when they're going to do something about removing speech they find offensive your first amendment is basically gone. Do you think they just invite him in to hear what he has to say? It's all an intimidation tactic to elicit coercion from these companies so they can use these platforms to push their agenda and silence anything else while guaranteeing funding.
>Anyone that believes in the first amendment should be very against governments being able to determine content on private platforms.
Wow? gaslight much? This would have done the opposite by disallowing the platforms to allow you only to see specific things. I don't know what to tell you if you're so confused that you think blocking specific speech is more supportive of the 1st amendment.
>This is not a political party issue, its a constitutional one.
I don't even know what you mean by that. There's one party pushing de-platforming and removal right now.
No, it's actually unconstitutional when you have Senators like Hirono requesting and goading them into removing people they don't like.
I find it hilarious that years of being against "big business" democrats are now the one's championing monopolies and in bed with everyone in Silicon Valley.
>The government certainly should not be able to come in and fine you for deleting comments on your blog.
But it's ok to threaten action if Trump isn't removed from platforms? Double standards are great!