"the California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the California Court of Appeals finding that the provisions of the California constitution permitted the students to exercise their activities as the shopping center. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court and held that the exercise of the rights of free expression did not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment and did not constitute a denial of the owner’s property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment."
The review of these cases suggests that Social Media is very much a public space that is owned privately and thus the owners cannot forbid the exercise of free speech.
This same outcome happened in the State of NJ in 1994.
https://www.rcfp.org/new-jersey-shopping-malls-must-allow-protestors-court-rules/
Apparently does not apply to those who advocate a pro-life position
Keeping demonstrators, agitators, solicitors, protestors and proselytizers out of shopping malls is a good thing.
Witness the continued erosion and eventual making of the 1st Amendment (and eventually the Constitution) null-in-void.
Er, then how could the exercise of the property owners' free expression not to contribute their property to the promotion of those views be a taking?
What a bizarre position the court took. (Pardon my pointing out the obvious, but I am seeing socialist absurdity with new eyes these days.)
I’d like to see Trump and others sue Twitter, Facebook, and the rest, using these cases as precedent.