The argument is that the first ammendment protects the right to engage in private censorship.
In my mind, the core debate at the center of the issue is the assertion that corporations have the same rights as any other citizen. I think that is patently absurd but the Supreme Court disagrees.
So if the city officials sell public squares into private ownership you loose the right to protest. Its not sensorship!
Very convenient, I am sure it will never be abused.
Lets try a different example - what if oil companies pay twitter to boot off all climate activists, is that cool?
This is sarcasm right ? I mean when the party in power directly issues fiat's to social media to ban something, it is OK ?
This is because your right to free speech doesn't entail a right to any particular platform or channel. Others, including the government, are in no way obligated to help you broadcast your speech.
And then we would ask if the behavior in question interferes with the achievement of that good.
Thus we avoid the merely semantic tangles.
Now, i know this is crazy, what if someone 'encourages' them to make the correct decision regarding not helping you? Someone with loads of money and inflience, that doesn't like your speech? Like an oil company, sensoring an activist, is that still legal?
But because it's privately owned, it isn't.
The way it hinges on who's name is on the receipt. Which is just a legal artifact. Seems unrealistic.
I mean, the more realistic take is : yes, our whole population is definitely using it to communicate. Before that solid fact any mere legalism is insubstantial.
And when you look at it that way it follows that there is definitely a snake in the cradle.