The argument would be that making the companies carry the speech they object to would be compelled speech, which is a big 1st Amendment no-no. The mall explanation comes from the Pruneyard case, where a California law requiring private malls to allow pamphleteers was upheld. But there's also Section 230, which the companies rely on specifically to disclaim any responsibility for user generated content on the theory that it is not their speech. Can't have it both ways, the 5th Circuit ruled.
Incidentally, the Pruneyard shopping mall is about the most ordinary thing you can find, the last place you'd think would be associated with a Supreme Court case.
The argument would be that making the companies carry the speech they object to would be compelled speech, which is a big 1st Amendment no-no. The mall explanation comes from the Pruneyard case, where a California law requiring private malls to allow pamphleteers was upheld. But there's also Section 230, which the companies rely on specifically to disclaim any responsibility for user generated content on the theory that it is not their speech. Can't have it both ways, the 5th Circuit ruled.
Incidentally, the Pruneyard shopping mall is about the most ordinary thing you can find, the last place you'd think would be associated with a Supreme Court case.