Telephone companies are private entities. They do not market themselves as public forums, but they are categorically open to the public (and multi-person conversations). Woe betide any phone company that attempts to control a person's speech over the phone.
The parallel is exact. Phone companies cannot interfere with conversations because they are a platform, not a publisher. Should they, there would be legal hell to pay.
(chuckle) You make my point. TV broadcasters are publishers, since they control the content. And publishing houses are not "open to the public" either. Not even newspapers.
The issue is not whether we are dealing with private or public entities. The issue is whether the entity is a platform or a publisher.
Telephone companies are private entities. They do not market themselves as public forums, but they are categorically open to the public (and multi-person conversations). Woe betide any phone company that attempts to control a person's speech over the phone.
Private entities regulated by the Public Service Commission, or at least that's how it used to be.
And?
The parallel is exact. Phone companies cannot interfere with conversations because they are a platform, not a publisher. Should they, there would be legal hell to pay.
Clear enough?
Not really, because television broadcasters are not open to the public (other than public access channels)
(chuckle) You make my point. TV broadcasters are publishers, since they control the content. And publishing houses are not "open to the public" either. Not even newspapers.
The issue is not whether we are dealing with private or public entities. The issue is whether the entity is a platform or a publisher.