05-21-2020, 10:13 AM
Im not so sure that just because YouTube or Twitter are private property they get to exclude speech they dont like, specifically under the California constitution that has broader free speech protections than the US constitution.
Those of you who were in the Bay Area during the ‘80s may remember when the Cal Supreme Ct required the PruneYard shopping Center to allow people to exercise free speech rights on their private property. A summary and whole line of related cases is here...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyar..._v._Robins
Im not a constitutional law scholar, so maybe Im missing something, but seems to me if Pruneyard cant discriminate against free speech on its private property, Im unclear why Twitter or YouTube which also hold themselves out as open to the public and have aspects of our traditional “town halls” would be able to do so.
Thats not to say “anything goes” or there are no limits, but Im unclear that they have an absolute right to limit free speech.
Those of you who were in the Bay Area during the ‘80s may remember when the Cal Supreme Ct required the PruneYard shopping Center to allow people to exercise free speech rights on their private property. A summary and whole line of related cases is here...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyar..._v._Robins
Im not a constitutional law scholar, so maybe Im missing something, but seems to me if Pruneyard cant discriminate against free speech on its private property, Im unclear why Twitter or YouTube which also hold themselves out as open to the public and have aspects of our traditional “town halls” would be able to do so.
Thats not to say “anything goes” or there are no limits, but Im unclear that they have an absolute right to limit free speech.