Darling, you don't understand the First Amendment. The GOVERNMENT cannot just censor you without a good reason (which is also in the First Amendment).

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, OPP, are ALL private companies. Not one of them has any obligation to publish anything you post. They can delete, censor, deny access, suspend you, ban you, place a warning on your post, anything they want. They owe you nothing.

The difference is the GOVERNMENT cannot censor you without due process, but EVERY private company can.

LII U.S. Code Title 47. TELECOMMUNICATIONS Chapter 5. WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION Subchapter II. COMMON CARRIERS Part I. Common Carrier Regulation Section 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

(a) FindingsThe Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) PolicyIt is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer.
(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.

(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.

(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.

(4) No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.

(5) No effect on sex trafficking lawNothing in this section (other than subsection (c)(2)(A)) shall be construed to impair or limit—
(A) any claim in a civil action brought under section 1595 of title 18, if the conduct underlying the claim constitutes a violation of section 1591 of that title;
(B) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 1591 of title 18; or
(C) any charge in a criminal prosecution brought under State law if the conduct underlying the charge would constitute a violation of section 2421A of title 18, and promotion or facilitation of prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the defendant’s promotion or facilitation of prostitution was targeted.
(f) DefinitionsAs used in this section:
(1) Internet
The term “Internet” means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.

(2) Interactive computer service
The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

(3) Information content provider
The term “information content provider” means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.

(4) Access software providerThe term “access software provider” means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C) t***smit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or t***slate content.

Don't be too disappointed should this "Senate committee investigation" fail to materialize, the only hint at one that I managed to find are all from.... media sources of questionable merit. Of course that is not to say such an investigation may not be brewing, only that I could not locate reliable confirmation as yet.

As for these "E-mails"... I will choose to wait until I have a bit more confirmed information from sources I deem reliable before I determine how "damning" I consider them to be. Sorry, life has converted me into a skeptic against my will. Damn, sure do miss those days of innocence.

Darling, you don't understand the First Amendment. The GOVERNMENT cannot just censor you without a good reason (which is also in the First Amendment).

Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, OPP, are ALL private companies. Not one of them has any obligation to publish anything you post. They can delete, censor, deny access, suspend you, ban you, place a warning on your post, anything they want. They owe you nothing.

The difference is the GOVERNMENT cannot censor you without due process, but EVERY private company can.

That's very true when it comes to private businesses. A friend of mine was upset because a security guard told him that he couldn't wear his knife on his belt while in a shopping mall and pointed out the Second Amendment which is the right to bear arms, then I explained that it doesn't apply to malls because the owners can make any rules they want. I told him that it's the same thing as if he applied rules for visitors to his home. In spite of the right to bear arms, he still has the right to forbid his guests to bring weapons into his home because he's the one who's paying the rent and other bills, therefore, he's the king of that particular castle.

Don't be too disappointed should this "Senate committee investigation" fail to materialize, the only hint at one that I managed to find are all from.... media sources of questionable merit. Of course that is not to say such an investigation may not be brewing, only that I could not locate reliable confirmation as yet.

As for these "E-mails"... I will choose to wait until I have a bit more confirmed information from sources I deem reliable before I determine how "damning" I consider them to be. Sorry, life has converted me into a skeptic against my will. Damn, sure do miss those days of innocence.

No, your approach is absolutely correct... Vett everything that comes along because nothing is true until proven beyond reasonable doubt..

Yet another Senate committee investigation that will pretty well tell you nothing will materialize just like any of the others... What we are seeing now is just more BS that will take months if not years to “investigate” and still have no drawn conclusion.

The most incompetent people supposedly elected because of their supposed intelligence, what a pathetic joke for the citizens of this great country!!