Read the actual case and not the Wikipedia summary. The ruling only applies to restrictions on public rights of way (in this case, meaning the public easements

Read the actual case and not the Wikipedia summary. The ruling only applies to restrictions on public rights of way (in this case, meaning the public easements over otherwise private property). Supreme Court has ruled both this and other times that if a private citizen or company encloses the commons they're bound by the same First Amendment that the government is, for the same reasons. No, they haven't. SCOTUS ruled that in limited circumstances, private property can be treated as a public commons if the property owner holds it out for general public use. Following the mall cases, many malls began restricting the acceptable uses on their properties, which is why you don't get harassed by political activists every time you go to the mall. (In a nutshell, open mall spaces are now designated as transit spaces rather than as general use spaces, and thus the entire lineage of SCOTUS cases no longer apply to privately held malls.)