But the Court is not muzzling the government in the sense of prohibiting their public message. The court is enjoining their method of influencing public debate - that they were/are preventing what you say from being published based on its content.

Prohibiting unlawful orders is not an abridgment of an authority’s “free speech”.

Nothing the government was doing is preventing what I say from being published based on its content because (a) I left Twitter ages ago (on account of it being a hole) and (b) I have no right to post on Twitter in the first place.

I'm not sure why this needs to be said, but "you" in this context is conceptually an abstraction of the private citizen. Maybe @shadowgovt the individual never says a word that the establishment would disapprove of, but don't count on that always being the case, and certainly don't expect others to fall in line in that regard. Is it your opinion that the government should have such power - specifically to, without officially commandeering/nationalizing the companies, to direct them to censor disfavored non-criminal speech?

I personally believe the government can certainly pass information on to private corporations and then the private corporations can then choose what to do.

Whether the situation went past that is what this court case would be about, and nothing has been decided on that topic yet.

> the government can certainly pass information

As you acknowledge, that's not remotely the issue here.

It is, in fact, the position of one of the parties in this lawsuit that this is all that's at issue here.

We'll see what the situation is on the other side of the case (and possibly the appeal, no matter which side wins).