No. Should have precisely zero baring on anything at all.
Reminder: Support of free speech requires support of the right to say things that you loathe by people you hate or you don’t support free speech.
See it?
I know you didn't mean it this way, but both sides believe this to be true depending on how you define "the right"
The thread in question is already 6 days old but you (both) broke the site rules so badly that this is not one to let pass.
We end up having to ban accounts that break the site guidelines like that, so please don't do it again.
No it doesn't. You're putting arbitrary limits to suit your views. You can support free speech for American citizens and also support using a foreigner's speech to determine whether or not we allow them into the country. That's just smart border policy. We should be vetting who we allow into our country, and using their speech is one way to vet them.
Obviously not allowing someone in over a bald JD Vance meme is stupid. But the idea that we have to allow all foreigners the same level of free speech without it affecting their chances of getting into the country is also stupid.
The bar for when speech should be criminalized/penalized by the government should be very high.
For private entities I'm far more tolerate of censorship especially since it cuts both ways. Allowing or banning speech can directly impact a company's bottom line and should be regulated by customers choosing to interact with or avoid platforms.
Who is this "we" and what rules govern these "we"? What are the consequences for this "we" just up and violating the rules or throwing those rules out altogether to grift, stay in power and persecute those they hate?
Maybe someday the civilized world will realize democracy often ends in the case of two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.