An actually-relevant citation - Supreme Court, 2019:
Under the Court’s cases, a private entity may qualify as a state actor when it exercises “powers traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” … It is not enough that the federal, state, or local government exercised the function in the past, or still does. And it is not enough that the function serves the public good or the public interest in some way. Rather, to qualify as a traditional, exclusive public function within the meaning of our state-action precedents, the government must have traditionally and exclusively performed the function.
The Court has stressed that “very few” functions fall into that category. … Under the Court’s cases, those functions include, for example, running elections and operating a company town. … The Court has ruled that a variety of functions do not fall into that category, including, for example: running sports associations and leagues, administering insurance payments, operating nursing homes, providing special education, representing indigent criminal defendants, resolving private disputes, and supplying electricity.
…
When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content[.]
By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine[.]
The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment[”.]
In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.
If the rule were otherwise, all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints and would lose the ability to exercise what they deem to be appropriate editorial discretion within that open forum. Private property owners and private lessees would face the unappetizing choice of allowing all comers or closing the platform altogether. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” … Benjamin Franklin did not have to operate his newspaper as “a stagecoach, with seats for everyone.” … That principle still holds true. As the Court said in Hudgens, to hold that private property owners providing a forum for speech are constrained by the First Amendment would be “to create a court-made law wholly disregarding the constitutional basis on which private ownership of property rests in this country.” … The Constitution does not disable private property owners and private lessees from exercising editorial discretion over speech and speakers on their property.
…
A private entity … who opens its property for speech by others is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF so ea
No amount of gaslighting from you will change the fact that we were there when you had every one of your corrupt partisan disinformation talking points completely debunked with facts, yet you come here delusionally pretending like that never happened.
On the post: Does Taking Down Content Lead Ignorant People To Believe It's More Likely To Be True?
Re: content moderation
All evidence points to it's Republicans
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
As with the word "censorship" your downfall seems to be your illiteracy.
On the post: Nigeria Suspends All Of Twitter After It Removes President's Tweet
Re: Re:
You've already been educated before on how you're lying. This proves your dishonesty is deliberate bad faith.
On the post: Washington Post Runs Bizarrely Ignorant Opinion Piece Claiming Florida's Content Moderation Law Is Constitutional
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet again you prove me correct by repeating far-right lies.
On the post: Washington Post Runs Bizarrely Ignorant Opinion Piece Claiming Florida's Content Moderation Law Is Constitutional
Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts claims found nowhere outside of the extremist-Right's disinformative projection]
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Re:
^stands on 5th avenue and*
On the post: The Flopping Of Trump's Blog Proves That It's Not Free Speech He's Upset About; But Free Reach
Trump's latest appearance puts a bullet theough the "Biden is the one with dementia" projection.
On the post: Washington Post Runs Bizarrely Ignorant Opinion Piece Claiming Florida's Content Moderation Law Is Constitutional
An actually-relevant citation - Supreme Court, 2019:
On the post: Washington Post Runs Bizarrely Ignorant Opinion Piece Claiming Florida's Content Moderation Law Is Constitutional
Re: Re: you played yourself son
Portent certainly wrote a lot of words only to admit he has zero support for his lies.
But as they say, stupid is as stupid does.
On the post: As Western Democracies Ramp Up Efforts To Censor Social Media, Russia Appears To Feel Emboldened To Do More Itself
Re: Re: Re: Other Way Around
[Asserts facts contradicted by all evidence]
On the post: As Western Democracies Ramp Up Efforts To Censor Social Media, Russia Appears To Feel Emboldened To Do More Itself
Re: Other Way Around
With Koby at the forefront of cheerleading in support of that censorship.
On the post: Washington Post Runs Bizarrely Ignorant Opinion Piece Claiming Florida's Content Moderation Law Is Constitutional
Re: Bizarre
So by writing comments supporting totalitarianism liwke that one, you admit you're bizarrely ignorant?
On the post: Fact Check: Yes, Fact Checking Is Totally Protected By The 1st Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
On the post: Fact Check: Yes, Fact Checking Is Totally Protected By The 1st Amendment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Hallucinates facts not in evidence]
On the post: Arizona County's Voting Machines Rendered Unusable By OAN-Financed Vote Auditors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF so ea
No amount of gaslighting from you will change the fact that we were there when you had every one of your corrupt partisan disinformation talking points completely debunked with facts, yet you come here delusionally pretending like that never happened.
On the post: Arizona County's Voting Machines Rendered Unusable By OAN-Financed Vote Auditors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF so ea
[Projects facts not in evidence]
On the post: Arizona County's Voting Machines Rendered Unusable By OAN-Financed Vote Auditors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF so easily cor
Good job admitting you're an ignorant idiot, Trump voter.
On the post: Arizona County's Voting Machines Rendered Unusable By OAN-Financed Vote Auditors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IF so easily cor
Thanks for proving me correct on all counts with your deliberate lies.
On the post: Corporations Are Being Forced To Take Consumer Complaints Back To Court After Arbitration Push Backfires Spectacularly
Who do these companies complain to, for getting them into the business of petards?
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Twitter Suspends Users Who Tweet The Word 'Memphis' (2021)
Next >>