What if one day the government decides it wants to get in the business of offering ‘basic hosting’ for everyone. Would we say, well, no we can’t sensor that, that would be government censorship?
My point is I don’t think evaluating it on government/private business is very helpful in determining whether something should be allowed or not.
> Would we say, well, no we can’t sensor that, that would be government censorship?
... yes? We would say that.
That's exactly how we draw the line now. For example, nobody would demand a stadium offer naming rights to the KKK, but the state of Georgia had to allow that organization to "adopt a highway" under its charity-for-recognition program (https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/us/georgia-kkk-adopt-a-highwa...).
Ultimately, there is no uncontested free speech right in private conduct. If I am exercising a speech right to (say) rent a billboard for an advertisement, then the owner of that billboard is also exercising one if they give me a discount because I'm advertising kittens for adoption.
Once the government gets involved, however, it is often acting with the force of law. That is where we deem free speech rights to be sancrosanct.
My point is I don’t think evaluating it on government/private business is very helpful in determining whether something should be allowed or not.