5 ms·

I don't know where you got the impression that private property means the first amendment no longer applies. The Supreme Court has been very clear if a person o

I don't know where you got the impression that private property means the first amendment no longer applies. The Supreme Court has been very clear if a person or company opens up there property sufficiently they no longer get to ignore it. > ... noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama We are a very very small jump from this being applied to social media.

loceng 6y ago
You're grasping at straws here. Are you genuinely trying to compare a private corporation to the sidewalk of a city/town? Cities/towns are registered private entities for organizational purposes, however in good faith and spirit they are owned indirectly by the citizens of that place. Private corporations like Google, Apple, are not the same - and to think a ruling from the 40s applies is interesting. Another point is you must become a registered user, which arguably removes you from the group of general public. Besides that a ruling doesn't mean it's in the correct direction. Slavery used to be legal and abortion - a woman having choice - is trying to be made illegal again - as two examples. The general public distributing religious flyers on a sidewalk freely open to the public sounds like a reasonable ruling, that wouldn't allow a person to do the same thing say at a gated community though where the public is generally allowed access to - which could be considered akin to requiring users are registered.