Your perspective is not even close to being the legal reality yet. Companies that provide a public service are considered to be a public utility and are thus su

Your perspective is not even close to being the legal reality yet. Companies that provide a public service are considered to be a public utility and are thus subject to certain federal laws including freedom of speech. There are two cases in particular that reference freedom of speech on private property[0][1]. The two rulings are at odds with each other. The first ruling, a US supreme court case, says what you're saying. The second, which is specifically a state of California ruling, says 'individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers' and 'states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights'. It seems this issue could wind up being decided on a state by state basis. [0]: https://infogalactic.com/info/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner https://infogalactic.com/info/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner [1]: https://infogalactic.com/info/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://infogalactic.com/info/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...