4 ms·
You could have just read my post to get the answer to this question. I put the details right in there. But here is the reason from my original comment: "This
by stale2002 3y ago
You could have just read my post to get the answer to this question.
I put the details right in there.
But here is the reason from my original comment: "This is the case even though they are a private company.".
It is because shopping malls are a private company.
Therefore, there are cases where it can be legal for the government to force private companies to allow certain speech.
Also, please directly acknowledge that I mentioned California in my original comment and that you just ignored that part for some reason in an incorrect attempt at a disagreement.
I expect you are just going to jump to another unrelated question or disagreement and not acknowledge that now both of your questions could have been answered by just reading my comment, instead of intentionally misunderstanding it.
Finally, you didn't directly say whether you agreed or disagreed with my central point which was this:
"There are absolutely all sorts of ways that private companies can be forced by the government to allow certain speech.".
I will assume this means that you have no disagreement with me in any way on this point because you just ignored it.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- singleshot_ 3y agoI disagree with the proposition that a person should be mis-citing irrelevant cases. My position that private companies can make editorial decisions to craft a coherent speech product in the commercial marketplace is well-staked.
- stale2002 3y ago> My position that private companies can make editorial decisions Since you just ignored my content without a quote anything, does that mean that yes you agree that private companies can be forced to host certain speech in some circumstances? (Circumstances, like for example what was in pruneyard, or similar?) You ignored this point again, so it seems like you agree with it but don't want to admit it. > mis-citing irrelevant cases It's not a miscite. The purpose of referencing that case is to prove that yes private companies, in some circumstances can be forced to host certain speech. Which you have not disagreed with yet. Therefore it's not a mis cite.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]