Yup. Incorrect.
California Supreme Court decided that Art. 1, §§ 2 and 3, of the California Constitution gave appellees the right to solicit signatures on appellants' property in exercising their state rights of free expression and petition.2 In so doing, the California Supreme Court rejected appellants' claim that recognition of such a right violated appellants' "right to exclude others," which is a fundamental component of their federally protected property rights. Appeal is thus the proper method of review.
What the 1980 California Supreme Court determined was that this group could hand out fliers and get signatures on petitions, peacefully and appropriatly, because it was open to the public and caused no harm to the property or to investors of the property, which was claimed by the appellate, but not proven.
Since this case, from 1980, there has been over a dozen cases against Twitter and Facebook where the court ruled that Social media does have a "right to exclude" those who violate their terms of service because the users agree to this terms and violations of those terms of service cause a harm to the value of the social media platform.
One example, if a advertiser (those who pay the bills on the social media platform) advertised to target people of color, and the posts on every one of their advertisements are "nigger", "all niggers should be hanged", " kill all kikes", that advertiser wouldn't advertise on that platform.
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).
(post is archived)