No it's not. Companies believe in free speech. They practice it all the time. They are not required to let you spout whatever ridiculous bullshit you want in their establishment, as in the end many could be held liable for your stupidity. Further, they are under no obligation to tolerate anything they do not want in their own venue, much the same as you have the right to eject someone from your property for saying something you don't like. If someone posts a sign on your property stating you're a stupid wanker, you have every right to remove it despite that sign being the other person's free speech. They can post it on a public bulletin board all they like, or post the sign on their own property if they wish. But you are under no obligation to entertain their sign (and their speech) on your property. The same goes for a company and their property. They are under no obligation to tolerate you saying things they don't like. Period, end-of-story. They believe in free speech. You're free to say whatever you want in a publicly owned space, or on your own property. Likewise, you're also free to control speech on your property. As are private companies. All of this is part of the free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment in the US, and is a tenet of free speech in general.

Free speech is for everyone, not just you. When you visit someone else's property, try to be mindful of that and not tell them they're stupid wankers. Especially if you want to have continued use of their facilities.

It is lost on you, since you justified the hypocrisy. They do not believe in free speech for anyone they have authority over, but demand it from the government for themselves. This is like wanting candy for yourself, but none for your children. Hope you learned something by this point.

PS. Please don't bloviate about your conservative talking points again.

I have. Probably not what you intended, but when your arguments dumb down to "nuh-uh yer wrong" I think I am done. However, I'll humor you one last time.

The Government can't limit speech.

Private entities can limit what speech they allow on their own property.

Having a publicly accessible space does not equal a public place. Think of it like your front yard. Publicly accessible, still private property.

Private entities are under no obligation to entertain speech they do not like on their own property.

Private entities practice their own free speech by stating whatever they like on their property.

Private entities can limit what is posted on their property if they do not agree with it, as a practice of their own free speech.

Your free speech rights are not infringed if a private entity states you can not say it on their property; you are completely free to state it on public property, your own property, or another property willing to let you put up the signs. A private entity not wanting your statement on their property is not limiting your free speech in any way shape or form.

Free speech applies to everyone. This includes the platform providers who let you use their private property to post information on.

That about covers it. You can respond with further stupidity if you like, I'm not likely to take further troll bait from you.

You don't seem to have read my comment that you are replying to. Nothing you wrote here changes the point I made that 99% of USA corporations don't support free speech principles, what they demand from the government to provide them. Public land is "private", in the sense the government owns it. You can't do what you want on it without consent and permission, or rights granted to you.

What does this even mean? If someone comes to my house and calls my wife a whore, should I let him stay because of "free speech principles"? So many people who reference free speech have no idea what it actually means. Hint: it does not mean Steam has to let you say stupid shit on their forum, nor does it mean Twitter has to let you post your stupid shit on their system.

Free speech means you can criticize the government/society (or Steam!) in public, or in a private setting (like GOG!) that lets you. That's it, that's all it means.

Why do you have to define it? My point is about the companies who don't believe in the principles of free speech and ask for it from the government, which is granted to them. And btw, you can't call someone a whore in public. It could be construed as assault. So you're wrong anyway.

Velvet's and Paladin's point is: if someone puts up a sign on YOUR front yard, you have the right to remove it and government won't intervene. If someone posts on a forum, the company running THEIR forum ALSO has the right to remove it and government won't intervene.

Or better yet, don't think of First Amendment free speech as "you can say whatever the fuck you want." Think of First Amendment free speech as "the government doesn't care what you say or where you say it." In this case, the government's ability of defining allowed speech goes to whoever owns the private property. You taking off that sign or the company banning this poster isn't a 1A violation, but the US government doing either is a 1A violation.

So in a sense, if you think companies don't believe in the principles of free speech and ask for it from the government, then it's the same for individuals.