I've been familiar with this case for a while and used to make a similar argument. I believe part of what made this case unique was that the Company was providing a role that the government typically provided. IE They ran a town.
This argument i believe was used in a case that had to do with public access television being run by a private company, and said private company was a bunch of dirty commie cock suckers. As i recall the judge said Marsh V. Alabama didn't apply because the private entity was not taking on a government role.
Unfortunately I don't think we'll get a win in the courts referencing this case. unless we get rid of 230, we're all fucked when it comes to facecunt and twatter
I've been familiar with this case for a while and used to make a similar argument. I believe part of what made this case unique was that the Company was providing a role that the government typically provided. IE They ran a town.
This argument i believe was used in a case that had to do with public access television being run by a private company, and said private company was a bunch of dirty commie cock suckers. As i recall the judge said Marsh V. Alabama didn't apply because the private entity was not taking on a government role.
Unfortunately I don't think we'll get a win in the courts referencing this case. unless we get rid of 230, we're all fucked when it comes to facecunt and twatter