My parents taught me if I was ever arrested just to say "I want a lawyer" and nothing else. I must have been about 9. How weird were they? The also worked for the federal government, which may have had an impact.
Edit: I am white. I am curious about all races, but I think it may be weirder since I'm not a racial minority.
I tend to think that "a free speech maximalist" would encourage communication platforms like Twitter to carry as much speech as possible.
So I don't find the argument "it's their platform they can do what they want" to be an argument about either free speech or the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
They'll also say these platforms have a 1A guarantee of freedom of association, but I find the argument that carrying Alex Jones's megabytes of tweets in a sea of pettabytes or exabytes of tweets taints Twitter more than FedEx carrying packages for the KKK, which FedEx has to do as a common carrier.
When I hear "it's their platform...", the way I interpret that from libertarians is they are more interested in property rights than in free speech, and from lawyers, well, the same I guess.
So it's not a strong free speech argument which I think would find that Twitter, having gone into business to make a communication platform should maximize free speech on that platform and carrying Milo's tweets doesn't impinge or is a very minimal impingement of any speech that Twitter wishes to make
Twitter could say "we absolutely disavow any tweets made by the Ayatollah, but we will carry his tweets so that people can hear and rebut this guy"
And so it seems to me a case where possibly the First Amendment and the principle of Free Speech are at odds with each other.
