I am not sure that many know the SCOTUS reason behind ruling for that bakery. No, I am not an expert on SCOTUS, but some rulings, IMO, are easy enough for most people to understand.
SCOTUS ruling in favor of the bakery was very narrow, as I understand the decision, and, IMO, some lawyer really wanting to push it, might have seen their way back to state court, or creatively reworked the lawsuit for an outcome in favor of the plaintiffs.. SCOTUS ruled that the state court did not adequately consider the Bakery's religious viewpoint, and, basically discriminated against the bakery on religious grounds. In no way, again, as I understand it, did the SCOTUS ruling give any bakery/business/whatever, the right to discriminate against anyone based on their sexual preferences. It was, perhaps, touted by "conservative" media as a victory for "conservative" principles, however, as I see it, that gives the ruling more power than it actually has.
On the principle of free speech, however, SCOTUS is definitive in stating that in no way does First Amendment Rights, in the US, give anyone the right to incite violence because incitement to violence is not necessary for the free exchange of ideas - and that is what, according to the ruling, the First Amendment is all about - the free exchange of ideas.
And, as I see it, many do not understand what "Congress shall make no law" means as the opening to the First Amendment. It applies quite clearly to "Congress". In that sense, "Congress" making a law that some company like Twitter or Facebook, etc., has to allow people to say whatever they like whenever they like in any context that they like would be unconstitutional because "Congress" had made the law. The long and short of that is, if anyone says something in a forum that the forum's owners decide they do not like and they remove the post containing it, too bad. It's their forum. And if the post is spouting incitement to violence, my bet is that the owners of the forum could be held liable for a lack of censorship if the forum did/does not delete the post.
To get more or less back to the topic, I think even Musky has no clue what free speech means with respect to him trying to take over Twitter. I think he thinks he will be able to say whatever he likes without respect to existing laws or rules, but, IMO, nothing could be further from the truth.
