> You think it's just conservative talking points that are being censored?

No, I think the fact that the law was passed (and that Abbot openly admitted it, which makes it much easier to prove) to advance a particular political viewpoint means that (independent of whether it might be framed neutrally or have neutral effect) it is Constitutionally impermissible, since either of an improper purpose, improper mechanism, or improper effect can make a law unconstitutional.

the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint.

The recent events, where conservative voices were targeted by big tech, was the catalyst for the law, but that doesn't make it illegal.

> the language of the law suggests that it's prohibited based on their political viewpoints versus isolating a specific political viewpoint.

You seem to be assuming a facially neutral law with a viewpoint specific purpose is Constitutional. It is not.

Usually, its harder to prove an improper purpose for a facially-neutral law, but then usually the people passing and signing a law with an improper purpose don't just public announce the viewpoint they are seeking to advance.