Someone reporting something you said to your employer: freedom of speech

Your employer declining to continue your employment: freedom of association

Advocating for a university to not host your talk: freedom of speech

A university not hosting your talk: freedom of association

and so on.

So it's legal, but you're definitely the Bad Guy.

No u, since we've apparently abandoned argument in favor of just making claims.

Also, contacting someone's employer is far from a slam dunk freedom of speech case. It could easily run afoul of several criminal statutes, not to mention the obvious civil liability.

One more nail in the coffin for Internet anonymity.

So, you do want some speech to be proscribed.

You are right about this classification, but in my opinion freedom of association does need to be limited. Freedom of association is a right that people should have in their private life, but it is definitely not a right that government or government-funded public institutions (e.g. education) should have. Similarly the types of 'association' which are essential for basic life - namely, housing, employment and finance - already have various anti-discrimination laws that effectively assert that everyone should have equal access to these things and freedom of association is not an excuse to exclude people from these core needs.

In essence, what I'm saying is that a card-carrying member of some radical movement (whichever movement you or I hate the most) perhaps should be shunned by people in all kinds of social activities because of their beliefs, but IMHO as long as they aren't breaking the law, they still should have the right to be a part of the society and receive core services which require interaction with it, namely, public services, education, jobs, housing, etc.

We have drawn a line in sand upon crossing which people are excluded from society, and that line is criminal law if determined in due process. And before crossing that line people should have the right to not be discriminated in employment. If most of your coworkers hate you because you come from the "opposing outgroup" where there's mutual hate and perhaps a history of violence between your "tribes" - too bad for them, both you and them should still have the right to work there.

It's equivalent to saying you can have a gun you just will go to prison if you ever use it.

Being banned from Twitter is not going to prison, it's being kicked out of a private club.

The tyranny isn't coming from me, it's coming from the people that own the company that's firing you. And the "tyrannical idea" you're referring to is called capitalism, and it has its upsides and its downsides. Don't shoot the messenger.

It appears that you are engaging in a logical fallacy by utilizing capitalism, which I assume is not something you hold in high regard, to silence someone's perspective during a discussion and attributing the blame to capitalism.

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are primarily owned and controlled by individuals and private companies rather than by the government or public institutions.

None of the things mentioned above are related to capitalism's coverage of free speech. It seems that your intention is to suppress those who hold differing opinions, and you are using the assumption that the silenced individuals support capitalism to justify your actions.

A logical fallacy is a flawed argument that can be revealed by reasoning. For instance, someone suggesting that attributing blame to capitalism is a way to silence another's speech. That is a logical fallacy, because it omits any explanation of how such an attribution could silence another person. :-)

Seriously though, do you not see how private ownership of communication services impacts the question of who is allowed to use those services? And that if there were a truly public service, how that would dramatically change the situation with respect to First Amendment rights?

For the record, I'm a huge fan of capitalism. But it surprises me how many people don't understand that it has drawbacks, and that we should be honest with ourselves about those drawbacks. It's ok to say that you're pro-capitalism but that you also think that the Internet (or at least some of it) should be a public utility, for instance.