On Monday, Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in a major case on the constitutionality of laws in Texas and Florida that are designed to prohibit social media platforms from “silencing conservatives.”

There’s no doubt that the big tech firms in Silicon Valley have an inglorious history of censoring conservative viewpoints. But these firms — not the government — built these platforms.

As such, they are the ones who should decide the content of what is on their own social media sites – not the politicians or bureaucrats.

Should the government be telling the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times what op-eds they must print?  Should federal regulators tell the HOTLINE that we need to publish more liberal content? God forbid.

The freedom of speech — one of our most precious rights — exclusively limits GOVERNMENT restrictions on speech, not private companies. Remember, the Constitution says “CONGRESS shall make no law” limiting speech.

Some conservatives retort that Google, Facebook, and other social media platforms are so big and profitable that they should be regulated as “common carrier” public utilities. Do we really want federal regulators refereeing what can and can’t be said on social media? This is a good way to make billions of dollars for trial lawyers and jeopardize our multi-trillion-dollar tech leadership in the world.

If you don’t like a social network’s bias against conservatives, the best form of retaliation is don’t use it. Turn it off. There are scores of alternatives to Google and Facebook. Turn on Truth Social. Go to Rumble.

A Wall Street Journal editorial asks precisely the right questions here:

“Do Florida and Texas want Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan dictating what can and can’t be said online? Could California pass a law requiring companies to remove posts that criticize male transgender participation in women’s sports?”

“The solution to business censorship of conservatives,” notes the Journal editorial, “isn’t government censorship of business.” Amen.