4 ms·

I always thought this scotus case was interesting and relevant to the question of “can a private space count as a public square?”. Clearly in some way it can. C

I always thought this scotus case was interesting and relevant to the question of “can a private space count as a public square?”. Clearly in some way it can. Curious what a real lawyer or constitutional scholar has to say about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

hn_acker 2y ago
I think that this article [1] by Mike Masnick (not a lawyer or professor, but often writes about First Amendment issues) and Brian L. Frye (a law professor) is useful for understanding the nuances of the Pruneyard case. Here's an excerpt (but I recommend reading the entire article): > That’s fatal to AELP’s argument. According to AELP, the First Amendment allows states to prohibit social media companies from censoring users, because social media websites are “open-access.” But newspapers are also “open-access,” because anyone can buy an advertisement. So, AELP’s argument necessarily implies that the First Amendment also allows states to prohibit newspapers from censoring advertisers. > Wrong. The Supreme Court explicitly said the opposite in PruneYard itself. And if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the government can’t tell newspapers what to print. > What’s the real difference between Miami Herald and PruneYard? It’s simple. Newspapers are in the speech business and shopping malls aren’t. The First Amendment says the government can’t force you to share someone else’s speech, but sometimes it can require you to tolerate speech you dislike. And which is social media more like? The business that is in the speech business, or a shopping mall where speech has nothing to do with its business? [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shopping-mall/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shop...

hn_acker 2y ago

I think that this article [1] by Mike Masnick (not a lawyer or professor, but often writes about First Amendment issues) and Brian L. Frye (a law professor) is useful for understanding the nuances of the Pruneyard case. Here's an excerpt (but I recommend reading the entire article): > That’s fatal to AELP’s argument. According to AELP, the First Amendment allows states to prohibit social media companies from censoring users, because social media websites are “open-access.” But newspapers are also “open-access,” because anyone can buy an advertisement. So, AELP’s argument necessarily implies that the First Amendment also allows states to prohibit newspapers from censoring advertisers. > Wrong. The Supreme Court explicitly said the opposite in PruneYard itself. And if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the government can’t tell newspapers what to print. > What’s the real difference between Miami Herald and PruneYard? It’s simple. Newspapers are in the speech business and shopping malls aren’t. The First Amendment says the government can’t force you to share someone else’s speech, but sometimes it can require you to tolerate speech you dislike. And which is social media more like? The business that is in the speech business, or a shopping mall where speech has nothing to do with its business? [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shopping-mall/ https://www.techdirt.com/2024/02/22/social-media-isnt-a-shop...