Q:
Packingham v. NC?
https://
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=285661631352488303&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
? (pic related)
Seems to me that the Supreme Court has declared, quite clearly, that the ability to use the internet is vital to being a part of today's society, and thus, there is a fundamental First Amendment right to be able to do so. (There's probably a 14th Am. right, as well).
In this case, decided in June 2017, the US Supreme Court held that 1st Am/free speech does apply to access to social media sites.
The opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, notes that the internet is a vast and changing place, and that the court does need to proceed with caution – but that caution must be in the direction of protecting Constitutional rights:
"This case is one of the first this Court has taken to address the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet. As a result, the Court must exercise extreme caution before suggesting that the First Amendment provides scant protection for access to vast networks in that medium."
Then, the opinion dives right in and says that the North Carolina law is obviously a violation of the First Amendment for not being "narrowly tailored." While there are a few limited exceptions to the First Amendment, they are very narrowly tailored and the Supreme Court has shown little to no interest in expanding them:
"Even making the assumption that the statute is content neutral and thus subject to intermediate scrutiny, the provision cannot stand. In order to survive intermediate scrutiny, a law must be 'narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.' … In other words, the law must not 'burden substantially' more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests. …
Even with these assumptions about the scope of the law and the State’s interest, the statute here enacts a prohibition unprecedented in the scope of First Amendment speech it burdens. Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another about it on any subject that might come to mind…. By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge. These websites can provide perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard. They allow a person with an Internet connection to 'become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.'…
In sum, to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights. It is unsettling to suggest that only a limited set of websites can be used even by persons who have completed their sentences. Even convicted criminals—and in some instances especially convicted criminals—might receive legitimate benefits from these means for access to the world of ideas, in particular if they seek to reform and to pursue lawful and rewarding lives."
Q, your blanket statement that "[f]ree speech does not apply in a private co setting" is not necessarily applicable to social media/privately- owned companies, and thus, is very misleading. There are many sound and viable arguments for expanding the Court's holding in Packingham to, for example . . . politically-motivated bans, shadow bans, censorship, and the like.
(The case says much more about these social media sites in relation to our constitutional rights and should be read in its entirety.)
As it stands, your post potentially, and unjustifiably, discourages many Americans from exercising their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in challenging the recent tactics used by social media. I am confident this was not your intent, and therefore, bring this matter to your attention, as we are all seeking Truth.
Respectfully,
Anon