The fundamental rule of conservatism is this:

>There must be an in-group that the law protects but does not bind, alongside an out-group that the law binds but does not protect.

That is why conservatives are so prickly about being regulated: to be bound by the rules is "proof" that they are no longer the in-group.

Your very assertion that the law can be applied fairly (to the point group membership is irrelevant) is a denial of the fundamental thesis of conservatism.

I agree that we should aspire to fairness and equality-before-the-rules, but there are too many people who do deeply believe that fundamental theorem to just deny and ignore.

I'm agreeing with you, to be clear, and I'm not a conservative. It's disappointing that that seems to be the inference people have made, if I understand correctly the message that was intended to be sent by the smattering of downvotes. It's disturbing that these things are being done to anyone, and that we don't understand the ramifications or the subtleties just because our tribe forbids us to empathise with the people involved.

If it were left-wingers being banned, or centrist Biden supporters, I have absolutely no doubt in the world that there would be a slew of New York Times thinkpieces about 'the complexity of our political liberties in a world where the public square is digital', or whatever nauseating way they would invariably phrase it.

(You can see this from the other reply saying "conservatives hate morals and that's why we can ignore morals in dealing with them", the exact same thing conservatives say about liberals, and eventually they're both justified. But apparently none of us has the necessary higher-order thinking skills to avoid a moral slide into bedlam. This case is perfectly illustrative: no amount of political-tribalist tosh should be able to persuade you that the other side doesn't deserve to be treated morally.)