Yup. Incorrect.
It literally says it in the ruling. You're telling the SCOTUS that their ruling is incorrect. I'm just copy/pasting.
It's CA Supreme Court, not SCOTUS and No, they are not wrong. You didn't read the decision. You're wrong.
The court listed out the several considerations that business owners have that constitute there "right to exclude" when barring a lawful citizen from their property.
The people wanting to hand out fliers didn't agree prior to entry to not hand out fliers.
Those people were not causing a harm by handing out those fliers. The company said they were but failed to prove it.
There were a few other conditions that were not satisfied to invoke the right to exclude, but those aren't important here
For social media, you promise to abide by their terms of service. Those handing out their fliers made no promises and had no agreements to do so. Social media platform users do.
And, the harm. Those handing out the fliers were causing no provable harm. The social media platform users that violate the terms of service do cause harm by interfering with the relationship between the advertisers, who pay the bills, and the platform.
Both of these conditions give the platform company a right to refuse which the CA SC clearly says is a right protected by the federal constitution as well as the states constitution.
Again, this case is from 1980. Twitter and Facebook, both, have been sued a dozen times since, in the state of California, for free speech restrictions and breech of contract. Every single suit has been won by the platform company.
They are not required to let you in their property. You agree to abide by their rules if you go on their property. And the can enforce their rules as they see fit to make their product and service appealing to their advertisers, the people paying for the product and service.
It's CA Supreme Court, not SCOTUS
Pruneyard is SCOTUS (447 U.S. 74).
You're right. I misread. Point, however, remains.
Users sign a agreement to abide by the platforms terms of service which specifically draw out what the do not allow, and tell you that everything is subject to their b interpretations.
Users posts that violate their ToS harm their business model and interfere with their relationship with their revenue streams.
These provide them with a right to exclude that's protected. You do not have a right to their property. You will never be allowed to call people niggers, and deny the holocaust on their platforms.
(post is archived)