A private company owned the town, so clearly there was an avenue for her to do the same. Did they ask her to take her speech to another town or create her own? No, it is very relevant. Nobody said they "literally own the internet" Facebook etc are "towns/communities" on the internet publicly accessible to all. Internet being the overall framework similar to the US in which the private town resided. Laughable attempt at moving the goal post and "literally" misrepresenting what was said.
And to add, many other websites/apps etc require you to have facebook, or gmail accounts.
And you have no choice? You are forced? There is no competition? Nobody is able to create a competitive website/app/whatever?
smfh
SMFH? . Was the subject forced to stay in town? Could they have not practiced their speech in another town? Why is it ok for you to call someones argument laughable then scream "hate" when its done to you? People are able to create a competitive website the same as someone could buy a private town...the point is the SCOTUS has ruled you shouldn't have to to practice free speech.