Yes.

Forbidden by whom? Forbidden by its owner vs forbidden by an external party like the government are two different situations.

Given this context, I don't give much BOTD for the "external party".

I'm not aware that the government has forbidden any news outlet from endorsing Kamala Harris. It would be weird if they did.

I'm not aware of any either, just trying to understand the point you're making with your comment.

I was referring to the context of the comment to which I was replying, and asking a rhetorical question regarding the relationship between the free speech rights of the press and the implication that the press should be prevented from expressing editorial opinions.

The paper is self-censoring. My confusion is around how the free speech rights of the press are being infringed. As I understand it, the paper willingly gave up its own rights. The point I was trying to make (poorly) is that this seems like less of an issue than, for instance, being compelled by a third party.

Edit: lots of changes to try and clarify my point

I disagree that the paper is self-censoring. Editors wrote and intended to publish endorsements of Kamala Harris. They didn't choose to censor themselves, nor willingly give up anything. The decision was made by management.

That may be less of a problem than government goon-squads raiding the Washington Post but I still think it's a problem.

Isn't management the paper too?

the article says when trump was president , he interfered and caused bezos’ business to lose a government contract due to the newspaper’s coverage of trump.

Your the same person who says that Facebook/Google/etc. are free to censor because they are private corporations.

Washington Post is also a private corporation.

You'd probably be the first person to say that newspapers shouldn't endorse candidates if they endorsed Trump. You'd be screaming that it's not appropriate and that it's election meddling.

I can respect that private corporations have the right to "censor" (I put that in quotes because nowadays literally any moderator action is considered censorship) while disagreeing with specific decisions by corporations to do so. I wouldn't say newspapers shouldn't endorse candidates if they endorsed Trump (as some papers have done,) but I would think that was a bad idea given Trump's animosity towards the press.

I can also distinguish between the value of the press and the value of a social media platform. Banning an account on Twitter doesn't carry the same social weight as banning journalists. To me, while both are legal and within the bounds of free speech, one is distinctly worse for society than the other.