[DiogenesLamp]

Let’s say censorship is strictly an act of a government agency. But we know that certain administrations leverage the use of a third party to circumvent certain little pesky Constitutional rights. Like the CIA not allowed to spy domestically so they enter a quid pro quo with the Brits who certainly have no such restriction when it comes to the good old US of A. Or Saint Fauci outsourcing gain-of-function offshore. I do believe both are illegal when done by a government actor.

Semimojo, Observator, Here is another Freeper giving free lessons in rationality and common sense.

And he continues.

Now, Devin, if you are saying your outlet has control of its platform and does not need to indulge any old point of view (setting aside Section 230), ok. But the moment you do so at the behest of the Government, you become an agent of said Government and the Constitutional restrictions apply. I believe “collusion” is a word that should sound familiar to you. Does Journolist ring a bell? So don’t collude, m’kay?

[semimojo]

But the moment you do so at the behest of the Government, you become an agent of said Government and the Constitutional restrictions apply.

You have a gift for posting statements that almost sound like they make sense but don't stand up to a moment's reflection.

Businesses and individuals do untold number of things at various governments' request every day. Voluntarily and not under penalty of law.

Provided what the government requests is legal, what's the legal basis for saying the cooperating entity loses their Constitutional rights when they cooperate?