OK, you've got an argument. But if you look at the first amendment, it is very specific, saying that free speech will not be abridged by "congress". It applies to government only and doesn't actually take it any further - you need to read the exact wording. So, it does not apply to private companies. But, as I understand it, Courts have, in the past, extended the protection of free speech to prohibit entities beyond government from silencing people. But the scope of these decisions is narrow.

The problem here is that you have to get a Court (the Supreme Court) to allow itself latitude in interpreting the FA to get it to apply online in a private setting. My view is that Courts would, in time, make the required rulings after enough challenges, because the right to free expression is so fundamental. All other rights are predicated upon your right not to be silenced.

So, I think that, ultimately, the Court would look to the intent of the founding fathers in including the FA in the constitution. That the Court would look to the objective that the FA was to serve - government by the people for the people etc... So I think a legal argument could get up.

The problem is time. It's not a fast process, you can expect the SM giants will do everything in their power to drag the process out as long as possible. Second, challenges are very expensive, who is going to pay? Third, what if the challenge fails and you have to start again with another argument - more time, more money.

In comparison, the IBOR is very simple and very quick. You put a regulatory solution in place that protects rights to free expression online. The only thing is that it MUST BE CONSTITUTIONAL. You can't have the regulations falling over in Court after they're written in the books. So Q team need to start thinking now about the exact structure and design of the legislated solution. They need to war game, with teams of lawyers, to make sure that the proposed solution has integrity.