That's not true. What opinion, belief, or statement am I currently not allowed to post on twitter, in the US, that isn't a violation of law?
It's not about you, it's not about the US. Those are caveats that ruin your argument. But even still what you're not allowed to do is use public info to track his jet, or post pictures of a flag that supposedly represented paedophilia.
Supposedly? What's the other argument for what it represented? I'm not about to derail the conversation, I'm just not aware that there was an alternative being argued.
But neither of your examples are opinions, beliefs, or statements. I'm not talking about the subjectivity of what constitutes doxing or prohibited images, both of which are banned on ALL social media platforms and have been for decades, and not many people had a problem with that. I don't need to use a picture or post someone's personal information to express a thought, opinion, belief, etc.
And I mention the US, because it's the only nation in the world with legally protected free speech protected by the highest law of the land. Anyone else can do as they please to disallow their citizen's speech, and have been doing so more and more lately.
The law was written into the constitution with the understanding that it would be YOUR speech that was free, but with the added caveat of anonymity that clause becomes muddied because then it's not clear WHOSE speech it is that you want protected.
Do you have a legal precedent for that assertion? It's an interesting argument, and one I've not heard before. It still doesn't quite hold up to the fact that the US government told twitter to censor verified accounts, but it's still an interesting aspect to consider.
I also don't live in fear of the government exerting influence to silence me on any of my private platforms either. This doesn't mean it doesn't or couldn't happen to anyone else, of course. I am aware of the particular examples that trouble you in regards to this issue. However, it is my personal view that although we're never going to get a perfect system, it works well enough and while these examples are troubling, I don't see us running into a constitutional crisis anytime soon because of them. Is this a classic frog boiling in the pot scenario? Maybe. But probably not.
I'm reminded of the MLK quote: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Even if you're fine with the actions the government has taken to influence the censorship of speech beyond what the law allows, because for now you happen to agree with what and who is being censored, I'd encourage you to remember that no group holds power forever. What people accept now always creates a precedent that will continue to be used in the future. It's why the ACLU used to fight for the rights of some of the worst people around to hatefully protest in the streets.
In practical terms, the only real form of censorship that the government has ever really imposed on me within the context of telecommunications is when I couldn't say "fuck my cunt" on TV. But that's a minor issue.
Did you know there are two knobs on social media? Always one of my favorite Carlin clips: