[david38]

So when malls started displacing downtowns, the courts recognized that malls needed to create free speech areas.

I can imagine a court saying that FB has enough of the population on it to force it to follow similar laws. Sure, it might have some indication of “free speech”, like a red box, but it would still be viewable, like it or not.

The comic also does two things. First, it implies that the canceled person is indeed an asshole, providing justification to the cancelers. It might be better to just say “they don’t like what you say”. The second, it gives the impression people are all individually canceling someone on their own judgement. This really isn’t what happens. What happens is someone says / does something, it’s presented in a certain way to maximize hatred of the person, the effects of the “crime” are often greatly exaggerated, even questioning the event and asking for details gets one branded a Nazi, all the past accomplishments are tainted, and all the while, many others are doing far more, but are lucky enough not to get enough attention to form a mob.

There is a reason we have libel and slander laws. Many people would be guilty if it weren’t so expensive to bring charges and so cheap to tweet.

[slowmovintarget]

> So when malls started displacing downtowns, the courts recognized that malls needed to create free speech areas.

This. This is the crux of the issue. If the "public square" has moved to Facebook and Reddit, then the Constitution should apply there.