[msla]

More charitable interpretation:

The Internet is the public square these days. Imagine if your town's public spaces were all owned by private businesses and you couldn't use them if those private businesses didn't like your message, skin color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or face. That's what I'm afraid of: The enclosure and destruction of the only place modern people have to be heard.

I'm not proposing a solution. There won't be a very easy solution.

[yardie]

> Imagine if your town's public spaces were all owned by private businesses and you couldn't use them if those private businesses didn't like your message, skin color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or face.

It's called the mall and that is basically the rule. You can be asked to leave for no reason at all or be hit with a trespassing charge. A public square is actually public, owned by the public, occupied by the public.

[Natsu]

> It's called the mall and that is basically the rule.

That depends on the state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

[msla]

> It's called the mall and that is basically the rule.

Depends on the state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

> A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.

[snip]

> This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center.

However, there's further limits to what a private company can do to free speech:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

> Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that a state trespassing statute could not be used to prevent the distribution of religious materials on a town's sidewalk even though the sidewalk was part of a privately-owned company town.

[snip]

> In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

[ben_w]

@mlsa wrote "all", not just the most dominant one. Add every park and every high street on top of the malls.

[wizzwizz4]

Wasn't there a rule that malls should be counted as public spaces? (Or am I thinking of a different country?)

[Natsu]

You're probably thinking of Pruneyard, I linked it just above you.