Someone posted about this: https://thedonald.win/p/11S0Ngaeaw/remember-roseanne/c/
TLDR: There is a court case which may invalidate Twitter, Facebook, etc., right to restrict freedom of speech.
Wikipedia Paste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, 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.
In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.
Someone posted about this: https://thedonald.win/p/11S0Ngaeaw/remember-roseanne/c/
TLDR: There is a court case which may invalidate Twitter, Facebook, etc., right to restrict freedom of speech.
Wikipedia Paste: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, 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.
In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.
Private "[o]wnership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public, and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation."
Doubt it. Even as we watch big tech shit all over everything they have nowhere near the control of a company town.
Let’s hope! We need a win.