Private property rights are under attack, and it’s because certain people fail to recognize certain entities as being private property.
Answer: Twitter for example.
That’s right. Twitter is a privately-owned entity, not a government entity. Thus, Twitter isn’t required to give free services to anyone.
So, when Twitter takes a free service away, Twitter hasn’t done anything illegal.
Twitter isn’t a necessity. Instead, it is a convenience.
Yet, plenty of people act as if they are entitled to free Twitter accounts.
For example . . .
Twitter isn’t a public utility, and those who have free Twitter accounts don’t have a right to free accounts. Thus, if Twitter management decides to ban someone from a free Twitter account, then management is within its rights.
Sure, people outside of Twitter management can reject the reason for the ban, but the ban is still legal.
Also, don’t complain that Twitter is censoring free speech, because Twitter isn’t. The First Amendment doesn’t give you the right to make another private party transmit your speech.
Facebook is another privately-owned entity that is under verbal attack.
It, too, isn’t a public utility. Like Twitter, Facebook is a convenience, not a necessity. If one doesn’t approve of how Facebook is managed, then one is free to not use Facebook.
Twitter and Facebook have private-property rights.
Classic Republicans and real Conservatives defend private-property rights. Thus, classic Republicans and real Conservatives will defend the private-property rights of Twitter and Facebook.
Again, the First Amendment doesn’t give one the right to force another private party to transmit one’s speech.
Granted, if another party is in breach of a contract, then one has a right to sue that party. However, if no contract has been breached, then one can complain, or one can move on. Sometimes, moving on is the correct thing to do.