So I posted responses to the above matter in response to other goats hemming and hawing about our right to free speech on the Internet, in response I was constantly responding with the Supreme Court case of Marsh V. Alabama, where a Mormon was prevented from entering private property as there was a no solicitation rule in place in a company (corporate) town.
The Mormon sued, stating that other solicitors had been allowed access, so they had the right to express their opinion. The Court agreed, since the company was acting as a common entity, allowing other solicitors to use their sidewalk(website) as aeats of conveyance.
Therefore, in my very non legal opinion, any message that is muted, removed, censored, or otherwise obscured or obstructed from being displayed in its intended manner is a violation of that Americans right, and should be fought.
Unfortunately I don't have the funds to test this by suing and taking it to the Supreme court, but if there is a goat that does, I'd love to be included in that legal eagle conversation.
Sort: Top
[–] Fred 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
You may want to read up on a later case which built on that one, Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner
I'm inclined to say that the court would likely rule against you, based on this precedent.