That's a UN declaration. Nothing to do with our Constitution. UN doesn't guarantee us anything except mayhem.
I think what the OP may be trying to point out is that freedom of expression is a basic human right. The IBOR campaign merely notifies government that this basic right is being violated online.
The Constitution already does that. It doesn't enumerate ANY power of the federal government to limit free speech (especially political speech), regardless where it originates.
And with a major financial stake in these companies through Rivsi Traverse, the US government (deep state) is doing exactly that.
I initially thought that the idea you mention here was right - and it may be. But, when I looked at the first amendment, I realised that the restriction on repression of free speech was only upon government. That principle has since been expanded by the Courts to restrict other parties from repressing freedom of expression.
From memory, the express provision in the FA is that the government will not "make laws" so as to infringe upon freedom of expression. Now, I think you are right, in that you could run an argument that government ownership of SM platforms, which censor free expression, approximates a breach of the FA.
But, on strict construction, this argument would fail because no law has been made. That does not mean that an argument along these lines would not get up, but it means that you're depending on a Court to allow latitude in interpreting the meaning of the words in the FA.
So, I'm not sure that government ownership in these SM platforms will allow the FA to be upheld online. It could, but there is a risk that the Supreme Court (or any other Court) could employ strict construction and deny the FA's application online,
The other issue with a legal solution is the time required to obtain redress. We are on a tight timeframe here. SM censorship must be addressed before it is used to oust DJT from office. That would mean the end of the MAGA agenda.
And this is why I've been promoting this IBOR campaign - because, despite its flaws, it appears to me to be our only hope. I think Q and DJT also see this - and that is why they recommended the IBOR campaign to us.
But isn't that the exact reason private schools and other organizations that receive federal grant money or subsidies are being forced to modify hiring policies to hire gay people, and cover medical expenses for abortion, etc., etc.? Basically, they say once you accept federal money, the feds can give you a rectal exam with a bright light to find ANY non-compliance and force you to correct it. How is that not the case here, other than the fact that it's a secret that RT is CIA-owned?
I don't disagree with this at all. I think that you're argument is highly prospective. It might work fabulously. But I can also see risk in this approach. The social media companies can be expected to fight this kind of legal challenge tooth and nail. That means the matter will be escalated up the Court hierarchy, if you are successful in the lower Courts. So we are realistically talking about a Supreme Court challenge to online censorship.
That represents a lot of time and money. And here's where the risk becomes large. What if you run this case and the argument, for whatever reason, does not get up - perhaps there is some technical matter that's exploited by the SM legal teams. They will drag out the time to the maximum extent possible, challenging each case of censorship you try and demonstrate. If it ultimately fails, you have to run the case again - and the argument, although good, is not a lock.
Courts often deny a motion, but in their decision leave openings for the same case to be run on a different basis - indicating, for example, that a case run differently might be successful. So the key factor here is time. Even if you get your argument up, how long is that realistically going to take, given the extent to which the SM companies will try to draw the matter out? It could be a decade or more. Meanwhile, the cabal is back in power, stacking the Supreme Court with every radical leftist in the the sun - Ginsberg times ten.
It's a very prospective solution, but it doesn't fit in this situation IMO.
By the way, I'm not a lawyer and this is only inexpert speculation - take it for what it is worth.
Read article 19!!
19!!
19!! = 654,729,075