I know there's technically a distinction, the abstract concept is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the "spirit" of free speech, but I'm not convinced it's useful to make a distinction between the spirit and the law anyway. The concept of government and law is just as abstract.

I think it's more accurate to say the first amendment specifically limits _how_ the US government is allowed to censor speech i.e. they can't use their extraordinary powers to do it. It doesn't say they can't use the same tools and tactics everyone else legally uses to minimize the visibility and impact of certain speech.

> I'm not convinced it's useful to make a distinction between the spirit and the law anyway. The concept of government and law is just as abstract.

My use of "abstract" refers to the fact that the first amendment applies only to the US government, and consequently it's more concrete or restricted than the broader "spirit". Any particular "free speech" law is just one concrete instance of the more abstract concept of "free speech". The utility of the distinction is proved by the fact that we can talk about "free speech" laws across countries, but also in that we are currently having a debate about whether large social media networks should adhere to a free speech ethos.

> I think it's more accurate to say the first amendment specifically limits _how_ the US government is allowed to censor speech i.e. they can't use their extraordinary powers to do it. It doesn't say they can't use the same tools and tactics everyone else legally uses to minimize the visibility and impact of certain speech.

I'm not sure what distinction you're making. Specifically I'm not sure what "tactics everyone else legally uses to minimize the visibility and impact of certain speech"--most people don't minimize the visibility and impact of speech. The few who do are generally private platforms, and the US government specifically can't use these same tools. For example, the government can't legally give a platform to a Muslim group but deny that platform to a Jewish group. Additionally, it can't use its extraordinary powers to e.g. order a takedown of an offensive website, but it can't use "ordinary" powers to denying platforms to certain groups either (e.g., Neo-nazis/Antifa can protest in the streets as well as moderate liberals).

I think most people try to minimize visibility and impact of speech they don't agree with in whatever little part of the world they have influence over by e.g. verbalizing disagreement and counter arguments; not inviting people they strongly disagree with to things; not hiring them; not recommending their business; not letting them get near their kids; down voting; 1 star reviews; suggesting others do the same; embellishing stories to paint them in a more negative light. People in government positions can do all that legally, maybe with a few extra things to tip-toe around, but not much.

Protests aren't really a government provided platform, they're more a natural gathering of people that the government is explicitly forbidden from breaking up by using their extraordinary powers. Somehow, they are allowed to get in the way by requiring permits, but worse, they can and do use tactics to escalate protests into something where they can legally use those powers. Individuals can use a similar tactics e.g. instigate someone to take a swing at them so they can claim self-defense.

Even though I'm the one that brought up government hosted platforms for open speech, now that I think about it, the only example I can really think of is maybe town hall meetings. Knowing what a mess those can be, maybe that's why the government has been smart enough to not start hosting open online forums.

> People in government positions can do all that legally, maybe with a few extra things to tip-toe around, but not much.

I don't see any problem with this? They're exercising their own free speech rights as private citizens, which is entirely compatible with free speech principles and the first amendment.

> Protests aren't really a government provided platform, they're more a natural gathering of people that the government is explicitly forbidden from breaking up by using their extraordinary powers.

"Public spaces" are a government provided platform. Similarly, if a public university allows certain groups to chalk messages on the sidewalk, they're legally obliged to let other groups chalk messages as well. Arguing that one or both of these aren't a "platform" is purely semantics.