"free of expression" = freedom of speech. Have you even read your own page? You dont think the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech from the state?

If they are indeed hate speech go on and report them. 

It is something new and it would require Congress to change the Constitution.  That's not going to happen.

Do you know the purpose of the 1st Amendment?  The entire reason it's there is to limit the power of the government.  The authors were trying to keep the government from controlling the people.  What you want is the exact opposite of that.

More than that, it would turn all the internet into the same cesspool.  Anyone could say anything they want, anywhere they want, and they would have law backing them up.  Regardless of the government control, it would simply make for a terrible user experience for anyone except trolls.

No, the law is just fine.  Alex Jones can make his own website and have his own forum.  His free speech is not being infringed upon at all.

Why are you so against hate speech?

Yeah anyone could be a troll. And anyone could be nice. That's freedom. The current system punishes people that we dont consider to have socially acceptable opinions and deplatforms them from society. You're hurting those people just because they're trolls, mean-spirited, etc what have you. The thing is it wouldnt effect you to have them on - I'm never forced on to AJ's FB page or youtube page. I ignore it. Every few months I check out one of his crazy meme videos for a laugh and thats it. I dont see how having bad people on these platforms is harmful. They can be ignored. 

Look obviously hate speech is BS. My point is why do we need to regulate it? We can ignore it. Works well for me

Your example is a bit extreme, but the point remains.

I feel like every few weeks I see videos from youtube personalities complaining about some new horrible policy that youtube implemented that is flagging their videos or demonetizing them, ect.

I'm betting none of them are complaining about Alex Jones being bopped out though.

It's the typical, don't care unless it affects them personally. They need to look at this and see a slippery slope. Think back to the cold war and how people reacted and treated anyone they thought was a communist. If youtube was around back then, I would imagine anyone on there who talked at all about communism would be banned. In today's world it feels like youtube would be closer to banning someone who talked about capitalism. It feels like people are all gung ho on socialism and communism and hate on the evil capitalism. Capilalism is racists/sexists and promotes income inequality. It is evil.

Kindly show us where you have a Constitutional right to the use of someone else's platform for your free speech. SPOILER: You don't. You have the right only to speak, not the right to force others to broadcast your message.

The most the Constitution guarantees you is to give speeches on community property or to broadcast your views from and using your own private property. Your "free speech" rights end at someone else's private property line, and that includes servers owned by a private entity. My property rights >>>>>>>> your "free speech" rights while you are on my property.

Jones can pick any platform that will agree to have him. In doing so, he agrees to abide by their rules, no matter how stupid he or you may think they are. He is also welcome to stand at an off-ramp from I-35 and broadcast his views, as that is public property. Mark Zuckerberg is not responsible for giving him a voice. Tim Cook is not responsible for giving him a signal boost. Only Alex Jones is responsible for giving Alex Jones a voice.

Apple and Facebook are under zero obligation to host Jones in the same way that I'm not required by any law to host a Klan rally, or even a church ice cream social, on my property. Their servers are their property, not mine, yours, or the government's. They can set the rules for the use of the servers. They can kick you off for use of their servers. You agree to the TOS when you make an account.  Just because the right doesn't agree with FB's decision to ban Jones does not give them any right to use the government to commandeer Facebook at the end of a gun barrel. They can go find another platform and be mad somewhere else, and maybe give Facebook some market competition. Your feelings on "hate speech" are not important as you are not the owner of that platform. Only the views of the owner matter.

Public regulation of Facebook as a utility IS a blatant violation of the Constitution, as the government would then be able to regulate what Facebook, can or can't say. Good luck getting 38 states to agree to amend the Constitution to allow regulating FB as a utility. The Northeast alone has enough states to block any such action.

It's being hampered. If you take away all mainstream platforms of social media, you're censoring him or limiting his ability to speak. It's politically motivated.

One could possibly start to argue monopoly or anti-trust laws.

Facebook and Youtube are so big that if they start to pick and choose who can use their service, one could argue that it is unfair.

Think of Microsoft when they got in trouble for including things like internet explorer installed on all computers. Companies claimed it was unfair and their browsers couldn't compete cause everyone used the pre-installed version.

What if Youtube decided that they are only going to show republican political ads? Would not say that is unfair? Should Youtube be able to do that?