I don’t like use of that vehicle to get the issue of Facebook, Twitter and Google censorship in front of the court. Public access TV is by its nature limited in time and its ability to allow all points of view. They are not by any means a monopoly of the public square. Whereas, Facebook et al. have become monopolies. Their business is such that it is conducive to have one place where everyone goes to communicate. You can’t have 12 Facebooks, you would only get to stay in touch with a small percentage of your friends. It is a natural monopoly.
And, being a natural monopoly, in a sphere in which public opinions are expressed, there is a body of law that says that creation of a public square on private property can make that private property subject to constitutional free speech protection. I am hoping for a case that analyses the issues with that in mind. Public access TV is too different, and could lead to bad precedent.
Public access TV is paid for by the public in taxes. Facebook isn't paid for by the public, but Facebook makes money off the public.
I agree, not the right case.