> The reasoning is that it’s similar to a government official holding a meeting, or other such public forum. That has to be open to all comers without viewpoint

> The reasoning is that it’s similar to a government official holding a meeting, or other such public forum. That has to be open to all comers without viewpoint discrimination. Except this isn't true. There are a number of exceptions where a public official can hold a meeting that is open to the public but only allows very specific topics to be discussed as chosen by the public official. In some cases, only the official may speak which means it isn't a public forum at all. Public officials in public meetings even have the power to exclude people based a a variety of criteria such as the case where someone is disrupting the meeting, or a press briefing. Knight vs Trump ruled that none of those exceptions could apply to Trump on Twitter, in essence making Trump's twitter account a completely public forum whether he wanted to or not. In the case of Marsh vs Alabama, both parties involved were private. My point in bringing up Knight vs Trump was to point out that the issue of social platforms as public forums has already been decided in very narrow cases. It seems like Prager U's best legal strategy would be to argue for the expansion of the public forum designation to apply to youtube. A number of people in this very thread have expressed sympathy to that approach so it's not out of left field. Without youtube being declared a public forum, Prager U's first amendment approach is dead on arrival as the court rightly pointed out in this case.