This isn't to mean they should avoid supporting "freedom of expression" but that these terms come with history and obligations that aren't always obvious.
If a company mentions 1st amendment rights, it isn't realistic to assume it will also have the capacity to correctly and quickly adjudicate all cases of expression that will occur within its service boundaries. People forget how parts of constitutional law itself are specializations with a lot of legal history and precedents.
The summary takeaway seems to be that service providers should avoid using these shorthand legal terms in their terms of service. Providers should try to spell out ToS specifically avoiding as much legalese as possible. Avoid using shorthand legal terms to give the illusion of a neutral position in an attempt to avoid liability.
This isn't to mean they should avoid supporting "freedom of expression" but that these terms come with history and obligations that aren't always obvious.
If a company mentions 1st amendment rights, it isn't realistic to assume it will also have the capacity to correctly and quickly adjudicate all cases of expression that will occur within its service boundaries. People forget how parts of constitutional law itself are specializations with a lot of legal history and precedents.
The summary takeaway seems to be that service providers should avoid using these shorthand legal terms in their terms of service. Providers should try to spell out ToS specifically avoiding as much legalese as possible. Avoid using shorthand legal terms to give the illusion of a neutral position in an attempt to avoid liability.