Donald Trump's re-election campaign got a satirical editorial cartoon by Pulitzer Prize winning 'toonist Nick Anderson taken down from Redbubble temporarily before the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund intervened and the merchandise showing the cartoon was put back up. In the story in the Guardian I saw, it was advanced that the Trump campaign's claim of trademark infringement that got the drawing temporarily spiked was based on the cartoon's depiction of MAGA hats!
I'm on a different side of the border, but I'm pretty sure that the First Amendment doesn't restrict Redbubble's ability to publish satire or Twitter's decisions about who gets to Tweet and what on their private platform. It restricts your government's ability to tell them what they can or can't say or publish. Do I have this wrong? And (with apologies, as I am Canadian) am I wrong in suspecting I've read your Constitution more carefully than your current president and his re-election campaign?
These have been your leading questions of the day.
It was pointed out on TV interview shows that, as you say, the Constitution prohibits government interference with free speech. Private companies, like Twitter, can choose to take down things that go against their policies. As for Trump reading the Constitution, surely you jest.