Congress doesn't trust us with free speech. TikTok proves it.

[reACTIONary]

6. I don't think any of those examples are on point...

.... Whether you can or can't or have exercised your freedom of speech elsewhere has no bearing on whether the government can limit it otherwise. If I want to use TikTok rather than Facebook that's my decision, not the government's. If I want to speak out on DU rather than FreeRepublic, that's up to me, not the government. Whether or not I could have or did tweet before bluesky, if I want to bluesky, that is not the government's decision - it is mine.

If you want folks to assemble in your living room, the government has no right to prevent it. If TikTok, or, say, DU, want folks to assemble on their platform, the government has no right to prevent it.

If the government establishes a forum for public speech and assembly, for instance, a pavilion in a public park, or an auditorium in a public school, they cannot deny its use based on the content of the speech or the reason for the assembly. A SCIF is not established as a forum for speech, so the example is not relevant.

In my opinion, what you are advocating is wrong, is dangerous, and would enable authoritarian oligarchs in their quest for power over the people.