When a sitting President is banned for political speech and at the behest of partisan narrative, that's anti-democratic authoritarianism. Sorry, "anti-authoritarianism" doesn't mean that unelected people with the power to ban have equal democratic mandate with an elected president. In terms of possessing a democratically acceptable ability to restrict a communication channel widely treated as The Commons. Those who banned him were given full political cover, if not a mandate, by POTUS's political opponents and an unelected hostile media. Without which there would have been too much "norm" respecting political pressure to accomplish.
I have nothing backwards and your wordplay is overly simplistic and wrong, to be polite about it.
I have nothing backwards and your wordplay is overly simplistic and wrong, to be polite about it.