this is where things get trickier for me. don't all the social media giants have rights to free speech as well, allowing them to do whatever they want with regards to promoting / disseminating content on their site ? it seems like the government is not forcing them to do anything, it seems like the companies are the one's taking action since the government portal is just to make requests. there might be nuance here if the company allows a government official to remove content directly but even then it might still be legal. can you prevent a private company / individual from giving someone else control over their speech ?

within that context though, perhaps you are saying that it is or should be illegal for government employees to ask . . . i'll have to think some more about what my opinion is there, i have no idea what the laws are around something like that. as a hyperbolic extrapolation, since you mention police, is it or should it be illegal for a police officer to ask someone not to call them a mean word ?

>When they arranged a contact at social media giants to whom they can report content to be removed.

What does arranging the contact have to do with it? The government has long identified speech it disagrees with and I'm really hard pressed to believe you think this is something the government can't do?

>All government actors are subject to the constitution and criminal and civil statutes. If they violate them, they can be charged even in the absence of a statute that says they can commit said violation. See Derek Chauvin and the other officers who recently were convicted of violating George Floyd's civil rights.

Oh, I thought you were saying this empowers them to.

>What does arranging the contact have to do with it? The government has long identified speech it disagrees with and I'm really hard pressed to believe you think this is something the government can't do?

It shows collusion. The government saying so and so said something we disagree with is fine. The government working hand in hand with a third party to prevent someone from speaking is no different than the government stopping the speech directly.

I'm positive that emailing that list to someone does not make it a violation of the first amendment. There's nothing secret or illegal about it either, so I don't think collusion is the word you are looking for. Now an agreement between Twitter and the executive branch, that Twitter would do everything asked of them would maybe make your point. Of course, that's exactly what's missing.