hmmm.... It certainly has nothing to do with the first amendment protections since twitter is a private company, but - at least from my POV - it does have to do with censorship, bias, and, depending on how you define it, free speech.
That's why a bar can kick you out for screaming racial slurs if they want to: it hurts their business by making their customers unhappy. That's also why corporations can donate to any political cause that they want. Some private corporations exist only to be biased! The ACLU is an example.
"Free speech" means, to me, the freedom to speak without fear. Twitter has not given Yiannopoulos a reason to fear speaking. He's just no longer free to use Twitter as a broadcast medium. It's like if Twitter lent him a huge megaphone that said "TWITTER" on it, listened to what he said, and then decided they didn't want him to have it anymore.
A privately-held telecom provider (i.e. utility) disagrees with my political views. As a result my internet service is terminated.
Let's agree the definition of a public utility is "Furnishes an everyday necessity to the public at large".
Has the provider restricted my First Amendment right?
At what point (if ever) would you consider Facebook/LinkedIn/Twitter public utilities?
On the internet you can choose whatever service you like.
Is Twitter or any other application layer non-government service on the internet a utility? No.
So is this what happened? No.
They didn't ban him for his political views, nor are they a utility.
No, they banned him for soliciting harassment, not for the views which motivated the solicitation of the harassment.
I believe you are referring to twitter being used to silence a dissenting opinion when you said "that policy", in reference to Nero. I actually think it's the other way, the bullying sent toward the SNL actresses' way, the sexist and homophobic comments, those were actually meant to silence a dissenting view, someone those people did not like.
Stopping bullying is a good thing. No good comes from bullying someone you don't like.
Or, lets go for something simpler: Spam. You're using the telcom provider to send out spam. They cut you off for it.
The only difference between Twitter and old school BBSes in this case is reach. You still need to break out the ban hammer sometimes or it turns into a cesspool.
I disagree. Because Twitter is a private company (and not a public utility), their being able to make this kind of decision is central to what the first amendment is about.
> it does have to do with censorship
Of course it has to do with censorship. Anytime a someone who owns an outlet chooses to allow or not allow their private channel to be used in a particular way, it has to do with censorship.