As the counter argument goes, the first amendment does not grant the right of amplified speech. If the government act as a publisher, with discretion to choose which information they choose to publish, then there is no conflict. Feel free to provide examples of first amendment being used to compell the government to publish someone else book or study.

I would like to reassert that censorship is harmful regardless which side does it, especially when the purpose is to silence opposing political views. The filtering should occur at the end points and in control of the user, not governments or companies.