That's just ridiculous. If everyone in town is allowed to send telegrams except for the one gay couple, is their speech not being suppressed?
I don't mean in the legal US sense of the legal right to free speech, I mean the actual speech itself. If most people can speak but you cannot, and completely absent any question of rights and legality, how is that not suppression?
Well, if YT is suppressing a user's video _because of their sexual orientation_, then yes, it would be.
If you have the option to send a letter, then your speech is not being suppressed. And if the telegram company is being considered a common carrier, your speech will not be suppressed.
All of these things (protected classes, common carriers, etc.) have already been considered.
Reverse it. Why do -I-, a private citizen or company, have an obligation to amplify your speech for you, often without compensation?
You don't have an obligation not to suppress my speech. However, when you do choose to suppress my speech, you are, in fact, suppressing my speech.
I'm not asking you, or YouTube, to stop suppressing speech. I'm objecting to the weasel-words. When you apply a special case to a user to reduce the reach of their content, that's targeted suppression. Suppression can be good! I'm grateful that YouTube suppresses spam and violence, but I'm not going to call it some newspeak term like unamplification.
I'm not sure why adding the reason of sexual orientation changes speech from being not-amplified to suppressed. Both cases are suppression. A fire suppression system doesn't turn into a fire unamplification system when it's used on the homes of heterosexuals.
But the thing is, ultimately, that your speech does not need a platform, let alone a specific platform, to be speech.
"I can't speak freely because Platform A won't carry it" isn't a thing when Platforms B through ZZZ exist. And if B through ZZZ have less reach, well, so be it.
