I am trying to tell you what it says, but you are still refusing to cooperate. You are too focused on words and not sufficiently focused on purpose.
Why don’t you read it and tell me where it explains that the government can regulate the speech of private entities.
Here is more of that deliberately misstating my position. The government *FORCING* "private" companies that control massive amounts of American communications traffic to carry all the traffic, is not "regulating" the speech of private entities.
These f***ing companies are perfectly within their rights to *SAY* anything they so choose to say, but what they cannot be allowed to do, is to control American speech to other Americans.
Still not seeing the part were the First Amendment allows the government to enforce regulation of speech on private companies. It says the exact opposite. The first prevents the government from regulating speech.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Were is the part about the government shall compel social media companies to give space for your speech? Oh, thats right there is some hidden meaning that you know about that turns “Congress shall make no law...” into “Congress shall make a law if someone cries about big mean old media companies...”.
Forcing someone to speak something they do not wish to speak is abridging speech. Freedom of speech also means the freedom to not speak or from being forced to speak someone else’s speech. It is ludicrous to say to the government can force a private entity or person to say things they do not agree with.
You have no right to force anyone to carry your speech and even better you have no right to be heard and the government is barred by the first from compelling anyone to do so.