Can you live without 'using other people's stuff' except like a hermit in a cave?
For groceries, that’s a private business. If you run into a grocery store and cause a scene or do something the owner doesn’t like the owner can remove you. There are fairly narrow exceptions to this, such as how you can’t usually be discriminated against for being a member of a protected class.
Freedom of Speech in the US was never designed to protect you from other people, it was designed to protect you from the government.
If so, the government centric line of argument does not get you anywhere, because there are many essential services are not government owned or controlled monopolies..
My electric, water, internet and mobile suppliers are private Same goes for the bank. There are only a handful of companies in each category in the country, and they could wake up tomorrow and remove me from their network.
You can either have personal liberty, or oligopolies with contracts 'we can remove you at any time for any reason'. Not both.
Someone else's speech isn't a protected class, except for speech due to religion. Discrimination based on things that aren't a property of being in a protected class is legal for any non-utility.
Personally I'd say that internet service providers should be utilities and regulated as such, but currently they aren't so the ISPs are allowed to decide what speech to carry.
Most of the bullshit our western democracies have experienced in the last years online should be archived and studied for the crimes our Russian Chinese friends have committed against our free democracy.
We literally have registered political parties in the west that do the exact same thing and the matter was proven in a court of law (Leave EU). They have faced no material consequences.
But living in a society means not upsetting people so badly that they won’t sell you groceries. There’s tons of ways to do that while retaining your ability to speak what’s on your mind, you just have to be thoughtful about how your words effect others, even if just to make sure you don’t get kicked out of society.
But it falls apart when 'people' are multinationals and "upsetting them" means their PR department gets a funny idea. In that case we need a contract that provides more protection than 'we can remove you at any time for any reason'
Imagine a corp optimizing click through. Any negative news could dampen that and require immediate action.
You have to be perfect or too big to remove.
Parler wasn’t removed from AWS because it was a conservative site, it was removed because it wasn’t willing to handle the legally troubling volume of potentially criminal activity. You can post your thoughts on any conservative idea you want on Twitter, no one is getting banned for that. The only reason anyone has been removed from any popular social media (or AWS) is because they became unwilling to recognize the fact they owe more than nothing to their fellow man, which includes not trying to silence others through intimidation.
Ideas have not been and are not still the problem, is the refusal to think carefully about how to express oneself.
I've never gotten COVID, so clearly there is something wrong with how you breathe!
Do some reading, google employees got banned from gmail and never found out why.
There is an important point that you are missing - I am not claiming that you can't kick people off your platform. I am asking that you have fair due process, and it's the same rules for me and for some loudmouth politician.
In other parts of the world there would be limits and requirements set by the parties elected by the people, i.e. rules on what things you can and can't discriminate on (like ability to pay you can measure, but skin color is not allowed to be a factor for selling electricity). Generally there is a list of factors that you cannot use to allow/deny sale.
Under the US Constitution, Christians can also refuse to bake gay cakes, fire gay employees, or evict gay members from positions of leadership.
At the heart of cancellation is the freedom of association; perhaps we should redraw the boundaries on where that freedom begins and ends, but while keeping in mind the balance of affairs.
They are freedom of association, but in some cases—in US law for the first consideration—they are within the scope of such freedom that government can (under the strict scrutiny test) and has chosen to (e.g., either as part of regulation of monopolies or as part of public accommodation law) limit.