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.
Illegal contracts aren't enforceable. If the SCOTUS applied Pruneyard to online content providers the terms of the ToS would be unenforceable.
Not true.
The court made it clear that if certain criteria were present, the business owners right to exclude trumps an individuals right to free speech, even if the public is allowed on the property.
It seems obvious, and has been shown, that letting people post objectionable content will stymie ad revenue. Your rights end where it causes harm to another. That loss of revenue caused by people posting nigger speech is a harm and a specific harm mentioned in your linked case.
(post is archived)