[WarOnPrivacy]

> If you run a public bulletin board tearing down fliers is absolutely a form of speech

I'd say where the protection starts is that the board is yours. You can make it as open or restricted or curated or nonsensical as you wish. Other individuals can put up their own boards and they can display whatever they wish.

This is what the 1A protects.

In a reality where an opinion can be displayed from millions of boards - I suggest that one individual removing it their own board is a fairly poor use of the term censorship.

[thegrim33]

You're portraying it as if there's not a small number of de-facto public square "boards" that the vast majority of people get almost all of their information from. Manipulation of those boards has an absolutely massive effect, and saying "well, you could go out in the woods and create your own public forum that a handful of people would ever see" isn't really an acceptable alternative.

[WWLink]

You're assuming that the vast majority of people want to hear your message. Maybe they like that site because it doesn't allow messages like that.

[vacuity]

This is why I wish there was a megaforum where anyone can isolate themselves into smaller forums as they wish. Then no one gets deplatformed by the feds or corporations or whatever (unless they call for violence or doxx someone, something like that), and yet no one has to see what they don't want to. Still but a stopgap to foster better communities, alas.

[hellojesus]

Isn't that essentially reddit?

[vacuity]

I suppose, but more general ways to structure the forum, moderation, how to do upvotes or likes, and so on. Maybe decentralized and federated. Make the whole Internet message passing, even!

[krapp]

Isn't that Mastodon?

[vacuity]

Sure, if Mastodon works as broadly as I described. It just needs to be more widespread then.

[barbacoa]

>I'd say where the protection starts is that the board is yours. You can make it as open or restricted or curated or nonsensical as you wish. Other individuals can put up their own boards and they can display whatever they wish.

As mentioned in the article, Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins ruling rejected that logic. The government can regulate your conduct. The speech in your bulletin board is that of those who wrote it, not your's. Thus not 1A issue.

The underlying issue is if social media is a platform (like a bulletin board) or a publisher (like a newspaper).

[JumpCrisscross]

> Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins ruling rejected that logic. The government can regulate your conduct

Pruneyard “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” [1].

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....