TYB
It's been proposed that anti-trust laws could be used against social media companies because of their selective censorship. It would probably work legally but wouldn't work long term as people will move towards one platform. Look at myspace and facebook; or bitchute, vevo, and youtube; or google, duck duck go, and bing. This isn't like breaking up Standard Oil or AT&T.
A different way, IMO, could be to use the fact that government pays social media companies to censor non-exempt speech through HR5181 to the tune of $160,000,000. This would mean the government is the de facto censor and would be a violation of the first amendment.
Secondly, the government invests in the stock market through state pension funds. Does this allow these states input into the companies strategies through board seats, etc.? This wouldn't normally be a problem with corporate investment unless it violates others rights.
Thirdly, there is "In-Q-Tel[, which] is the strategic investor for the U.S. intelligence and defense communities that identifies and adapts cutting-edge technologies that help make our nation safer." How much control does this initial investor allow the government over these companies.
Thanks, but I believe that what I'm proposing is inapposite to any SC cases since the first amendment doesn't apply to non-state actors. The case you cited doesn't apply to the restrictions that publicly-traded companies put on individuals in for non-exempt speech.
I believe that this is a novel theory, in that a private entity doesn't have the right to its first amendment right of free association if it's controlled behind the scenes by a government. How much control the state has on corporate policies regarding speech restrictions can only be determined upon discovery.
For example a private auditorium is free to associate with any of its potential customers and not rent to a potential speaker. A publicly-owned forum is not given this right for non-exempt speech.
>The court ruled that once the gates were open to all they could not require some to not use it.
>Same applies to FascistBook, at one time they allowed all open speech, now they censor conservatives.
I hope you're correct. Thanks for reading my thesis.