>>331436
< Similar Cases
Similar cases to Marsh Vs Alabama have happened:
Lloyd Corp. V. Tanner
https://archive.is/nPTjs (it went the other way)
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
https://archive.is/RRpwv
>Marsh v. Alabama ruled in favor of Marsh, since the entirety of the town was owned by the same company, effectively making it a monopoly
>Lloyd Corp. V. Tanner ruled in favor of Lloyd Corp., since they only owned the mall, and not the surrounding area, thus Tanner still has the right to protest in other publicly-accessible areas
>For Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, it was decided that state laws can expand upon federal free speech laws, but cannot infringe upon them
>On December 27, 2012, the Supreme Court of California reaffirmed Pruneyard but narrowed its applicability to the facts of the original case.[16] The entire court concurred in Associate Justice Joyce Kennard's holding that Pruneyard applies only to "common areas" of shopping centers that are designed and furnished to encourage shoppers to linger, congregate, relax, or converse at leisure, but does not apply to any other open portions of shopping centers merely intended to facilitate the efficient movement of shoppers in and out of tenants, including concrete aprons and sidewalks which shoppers simply walk across as they move between parking lots and big-box stores. In other words, the court effectively immunized most (but not all) strip malls and shopping centers from Pruneyard, except for those with areas analogous to public gathering areas such as plazas, atriums, or food courts.
> I'm guessing this would make applying such laws to the Internet that much more complex. But I'm no expert in law.
So the law may not be as clear cut as it appears. A new precedent could be argued for if it was taken to court however.
Even if Google and Twitter don't get fucked on Monopoly laws- it can still be argued as the biggest video provider and social media provider- they have to respect free speech laws more.
If it does go to court they'll just empty their warchests and
possibly get off scott free (before Trump it would be guaranteed).
The goal is to get people to demand the internet is treated under free speech as a Net Neutrality substitute.
People demanding free speech will scare the shit out of Google/Twitter/
(((many))) so it increases people turning against them or them fucking up.
Lets
use the people who want Net Neutrality to demand that part of the constitution is enforced… and fuck over Google/Twitter in the process. In theory,
it could make it unconstitutional for any website to censor it's users opinions. Holy shit- imagine living in a world like that.
You'll get banned if you call someone a cocksucker- but if you calmly make your argument, you can't be touched under US law on a US forum or internet service. Hot damn.
< Unlikely allies
I'd recommend remaking that archived post in a blog or similar, and rephrase it for leftists.
The language of the original post is very heavily biased towards stamping out a leftist bias. If we want to
use people on the left- we need to repackage the info to be more palatable. Explain how big-bad Trump wouldn't be able to force Twitter or Google to censor stuff he didn't like, since it'd be against the constitution.
I recommend this only be undertaken by someone who already has a good normalfag or left-leaning appearing blog or website, and who knows how to write
emotionally to appeal to them.