[jewelthief91]

> A website ban isn't even remotely the same thing as a legal sanction.

The Supreme Court seemed to have very different take (Packingham v. North Carolina):

"Social media allows users to gain access to information and communicate with one another on any subject that might come to mind. With one broad stroke, North Carolina 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. Foreclosing access to social media altogether thus prevents users from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights."

[gamblor956]

North Carolina was doing the banning, not the website. AKA, it was a government sanction...

North Carolina was also banning convicts' access to multiple websites, so it was more of an internet ban.

(It helps to read the entire case.)

[jewelthief91]

That wasn't the point of my comment. Yes 1A only applies to government censorship, however the SC clearly view access to the internet and social media as necessary for full exercise of 1A rights. It's now on the legislature to actually write the laws that would grant free speech rights to internet users.