> Political views aren't a statutory protected class because they're constitutionally protected, in that they're an essential component to having a democratic g

> Political views aren't a statutory protected class because they're constitutionally protected, in that they're an essential component to having a democratic government. Website moderation is not a violation of constitutional rights: full stop. In fact, the opposite is true; the freedom to moderate content on one's website is constitutionally protected because the government forcing speech on citizens that disagree with it is a clear violation of the 1st amendment. The citizenry are fully within their rights to say whatever they want within the law, but some people will ban you from their website if they don't like what you post on it... like the site we're having this conversation on, for example. This is just the way the internet works, it's a decentralized network of individual websites where each node has the freedom to determine how their site operates, it does not follow logically that because some nodes are arbitrarily popular they should have their property and 1st amendment rights rescinded. > It would mean the diner couldn't refuse service based on my politics. A diner is fully within their rights to refuse service based on politics and they should have the freedom to do so. If I'm the owner of a Jewish deli and a customer with a Nazi t-shirt walks in I should have the right to refuse service. He has the freedom to wear whatever shirt he wants and I have the freedom to snub people who wear shirts I don't like. > The difference with social media is: the entire purpose of it is to share and distribute the speech of users The purpose of any website is completely arbitrary and determined by the creators. We created labels like "social media" post-hoc out of pragmatism, but nothing requires a "social media" site to behave a certain way. The primary purpose of almost every popular website is to make money and moderation of toxic content that cannot be monetized is just part of doing business. Moderation is also a feature because the majority of users don't want to see obscene/violent/spammy content and will complain to have it removed. These website operators are within their rights to tailor the content to desires of a specific audience, someone else can make a different site to service the people who feel that their needs are not being met. > This is before you even begin to consider "public square" aspects of the platforms. Similar to how Company Towns were not allowed to infringe on the speech of employees, even though the company owned the streets and town square. (Marsh v. Alabama) This case is often brought up in these discussions but most people who do so misunderstand it. Marsh v Alabama is about the constitutionality of using trespassing laws to arrest Marsh for distribution of religious pamphlets. Nobody is being arrested for violating twitter's ToS so nobody's constitutional rights are being violated. If twitter sent the cops after you for creating alt accounts after getting banned, then you'd have a case.