The First Amendment means that the government may not take any action which abridges freedom of speech. Gathering censorship lists and communicating them to a private company is so obviously such an action that anyone claiming otherwise is clearly dishonest.
A slightly more honest question is whether those at Twitter who aided and abetted such "malfeasance" (putting it politely) should themselves regarded as party to it and also be held to legal account. That answer should be a firm "YES":
If these Twitter employees had *merely* implemented their own preferences, that would be vicious and shameful, but by accepting government help they are knowingly party to a criminal conspiracy and should be charged.
The First Amendment means that the government may not take any action which abridges freedom of speech. Gathering censorship lists and communicating them to a private company is so obviously such an action that anyone claiming otherwise is clearly dishonest.
A slightly more honest question is whether those at Twitter who aided and abetted such "malfeasance" (putting it politely) should themselves regarded as party to it and also be held to legal account. That answer should be a firm "YES":
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241
If these Twitter employees had *merely* implemented their own preferences, that would be vicious and shameful, but by accepting government help they are knowingly party to a criminal conspiracy and should be charged.