>In 1946, the Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v. Alabama, in which a Jehovah's Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Marsh argued that because the town's roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech--and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects--the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.
>In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh's favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban free speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place. Black also argued that the more that private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to control or ban what people do on that property.
>Given that Google, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, and other edge providers are publicly-accessible entities that have deliberately pushed for monopoly control over the Internet, it's clear that Marsh v. Alabama prohibits them from censoring right-wingers. the statute also applies to ISP's since they wield a monopoly over Internet access. All it would take to shut down online censorship is a halfway-decent lawyer arguing that these left-wing Big Tech companies are literally violating the Constitution.
Discuss.
