No, that logic doesn't hold. Free speech doesn't require private actors to enable noxious speech, just as the First Amendment doesn't require the government to buy you a printing press.
Free speech doesn't require private actors to enable noxious speech, just as the First Amendment doesn't require the government to buy you a printing press.
However, there are precedents in the law that show the US government prioritizes Free Speech over property rights. In 2018, allowing someone on your site is more akin to letting someone walk on your sidewalks than running a printing press for them.
I think you're confused, and that the precedent works in the opposite direction. See, for instance, Hudgens v NLRB. What may have you scrambled is decisions from other countries, or decisions that public officials operating pages under color of office on social networks cannot declare those pages to be private property.
If you're confident I'm wrong, can you please provide a cite?
There's Pruneyard, in California, which controls only in California and has been steadily whittled away by the California Supreme Court for decades. The trend in US law does not appear to be towards more expansive expropriation of private property to enable protest. Much more recently, Lechmere v NLRB held that private property owners can't be compelled to allow protests by non-employees (the employees of the company we're talking about have strong opinions about Gab in the direction you don't like.)
