While they are reducing the audience, they are not doing so the way a publisher might, by using their right to simply not publish (i.e. echo) your speech. They are doing so by reducing the amount of speech the publisher is allowed to have, by preventing them from sending that speech out to as many people. It’s an artificial limit, rather than one that naturally arises from the publisher relationship.
Someone not hosting your content does not reduce your speech. Someone restricting your ability to host your own content does reduce your speech. If places like Facebook were the only place to host your content, we’d have a much better argument for the lack of freedom of expression.
That said, there in fact is relevance to whether the above is done by a private entity or some sort of ruling authority–and whether the private entity is a monopoly and thus functions like a ruling authority. As long as it is merely a private entity, that entity itself has freedom of expression, and is not required to support your expression. You are always free to use another private entity or become your own private entity.
I do not agree that Facebook et al have an actual monopoly. They’re popular, but they’re not the only game in town, and there’s little barrier of entry to make your own social media network or just your own host. That said, you could argue that the ISPs do function as local monopolies, as there is often no competition for broadband speeds, and often deliberate barriers of entry that the local ISP did not have but that any others would have. Hence the argument for net neutrality to affect them.
ISPs are not supposed to be speaking–they’re just your connection to the Internet But platforms like Facebook are. They’re websites with a point of view. They just happen to allow their users the right to post mostly what they want to post, but with stated restrictions in their terms of service. (Same as any site that hosts user-created content, really, including the SDMB.)
And, even then, we get into whether the expression getting banned should even be free. I have long argued that deliberately false information does not actually warrant freedom of expression. It’s tricky actually making lying illegal, but that’s not an issue with the moral concept of freedom of expression. I can say that stopping you from spreading falsehoods should not count as a freedom of expression issue.
I’m actually more hesitant to say all calls for violence don’t count as freedom of expression. Sure, if the violence is predicated on falsehoods, then that’s obviously not right. But I’m not the type who thinks that violence can never be the answer. Sometimes it becomes the only way to fight an oppressor who has stripped your other non-violent rights. That said, I do think there is an argument that violent speech should enjoy less protection.
Then again, I’m also the type who thinks racist speech should enjoy less protection. I think, like all moral issues, freedom of expression can be overridden by other moral issues. I hate the attitude that it is the be-all end-all of morality.
No one seems to really think that, even, as even the most stalwart defenders of freedom of expression seem to have limits–@DemonTree is against death threats and harassment, as well she should be.
Wow, that spiraled a bit. Thinking about one part of what I was saying led to thinking about another part, so I decided to leave it all here, even though not all of it is relevant to the post I quoted.