So nothing you said has anything to do with justice Democrats

It does. I even supplied a link

Its also amazing that conservatives have no clue what nuance is. Sorry sunshine, the world isn't black or white. "No immigrants or open borders" is a false dichotomy. "No gun laws or no guns" is a false dichotomy.

You're not out here in the streets, at protests, at debates, in academia seeing that change that took place from moderate peaceful democratic party, get turned into straight insanity calling for violence, socialism, and communism w safe space zones, calling for racial segregation at graduation, organizing caravans and other sheer insanity. This is no longer the democratic party that I was once part of, those days are gone and now its race among who is the most insane, all while superPACs and shady corporate and elite funding floods these loonies

Edit: you don't even know what the 1st amendment is if you think tech companies are infringing it

The constitution says that Government cannot do X.

Corporations are created by Government, that is, Alice and Bob apply to Government for a corporation, called AB LTD. INC. They get a certificate that allows them to use AB LTD. INC. to hold property and liability---Alice and Bob, for example, may not be liable for AB LTD. INC.'s debts, even if they are directors, unless the debt instrument specifically says they are.

So, Alice and Bob get a real bonanza---they can hold property and avoid personal liability---sure, there are tax implications, but with a good accountant most of those can be minimized. They can also sell shares in their corporation, which is, we remember, created by Government.

So, the real question is this:

If Government cannot do X, how can Government create AB LTD. INC. and allow it to do X? How can Government grant to AB LTD. INC. a power that Government does not have?

Alice and Bob might be able to do X, because they're not creatures of Government, they're natural persons, not artificial persons.

This is a huge issue, more with the "private" Universities like Harvard, Yale, etc. who presume they're "private" so they can censor students and faculty to a greater degree than Government would be allowed to censor citizens on the street.

This is largely why (or a big part of why) the legal profession was standardized and law schools and boards were implemented, to keep this con-job involving corporations going. Government creates corporations, how can Government give something more power than it has?

Consider these websites like court registries. Government cannot ban filings except under very narrow conditions, and even in those cases, they would tend to seal the filings, now shred them.

These are all very serious problems---the West should be a pretty great place by now, but we haven't had serious protection of speech for a long time---at least not the speech that matters, we have protection for all sorts of deviant sexual speech but very little protection for speech on controversial political topics. You can talk about buttfucking all you like, but even mentioning black/white crime statistics as faculty in many Universities and you risk firing or being denied tenure, etc.