3 ms·
> This only follows if you believe you're under an obligation to use social media. Were the town residents in Marsh v Alabama, required to inhabit the company
by mediocrejoker 8y ago
> This only follows if you believe you're under an obligation to use social media.
Were the town residents in Marsh v Alabama, required to inhabit the company town? I think the fact that they did is what made is a public space, regardless of whether they were required to.
- tedivm 8y agoI don't think that's quite right. The issue there is that the company town wanted to be an actual town- they were providing services, inviting people to move in (including people who didn't directly work for them), and generally saying "anyone who wants to can be here"- they were very explicitly trying to create "public spaces". Facebook is not the same thing- people aren't moving there and people don't live there. I know we want to pretend that digital and physical are similar, but this particular case that everyone is citing was very specifically about the company towns and precedent afterwords has been pretty clear.