B.S.
The ONLY legitimacy of applying the first Amendment to private enterprise is the degree of federal control over that private enterprise.
The SOLUTION is to get the feds OUT of private enterprise, NOT to give the feds MORE unconstitutional power to regulate private parties and private businesses.
America is about INVIDUAL FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT COERCION.
This goes in the WRONG direction.
You should educate yourself more on this subject, read the decision, and read the cited precedents. Especially before getting so worked up over it. That’s something leftists love to do: get all hot and bothered over something they don’t know anything about and haven’t researched.
You need to read the ruling.
The services were the only entities using the First Amendment as their protection. The Court ruled the First Amendment did not protect the IT service entities when they deleted comments from users.
It all goes sideways when you have big media in collusion with a quasi-fascist government
The tech media giants are trying to use the first amendment's free speech rights to infer a right to limit speech. That's where the error is.
I understand the corollary argument that the right to peaceably assemble also infers the right to not assemble (i.e., the right to disassociate). That's not what is happening here. It would be like having a business block the right of people to assemble, like having a sports stadium deny entry to conservatives.
The inferred right to block speech is the non sequitur, as it is a third-party power over an individual. The proper inference should be the right of the individual to not participate in speech, such as refusing to participate in pronoun edicts.
If the private tech media outlets want to claim private ownership to bar people from using their products and services, don't couch it as a first amendment right to deny speech.
-PJ
The feds? Article said it was a Texas law that was upheld not a federal one right?
“The ONLY legitimacy of applying the first Amendment to private enterprise is the degree of federal control over that private enterprise.
This goes in the WRONG direction.”
This is going in the right direction per your own argument. The feds paid for Facebook and Twitter, control them through regulation, and politically they control them through party affiliation.
The platforms have become de facto public utilities.
Oligopolies (controlled by oligarchs too boot).
There is a case to be made to apply First Amendment here.
In fact, if one looks at how the government is funding all kinds of ridiculous speech with your tax dollars ….. how could you object?
Is trans speech protected speech?
Is pro clot shot speech protected?
Why should a platform that has received millions of $$$ of government money allowed to have it both ways?
These jacker-nauts want to use the First Amendment to talk ill of the Second Amendment. I guess that is legal and fair?