Is the "someone" positioning their property as "a place for people to say stuff, generally speaking" and promoting it that way? There is established case law a

Is the "someone" positioning their property as "a place for people to say stuff, generally speaking" and promoting it that way? There is established case law and legislation in the US, though pretty variable by state in terms of details, that people can in fact have free speech rights on private property when the private property de-facto functions as a public square. The devil is, as usual, in the details, and the details are, as usual, not time-invariant here.