SCOTUS has ruled in Lee v. International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc, holding unconstitutional a ban on leafleting in airport terminals.
SCOTUS has ruled in Jews for Jesus, holding unconstitutional a ban that effectively prohibited, within an airport terminal, "talking" or "the wearing of campaign buttons or symbolic clothing" that was not "airport related," noting that "no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech"
So an airport is a "public commons" even though it is usually private property. Why should YouTube be treated any differently?
Slashdot Mirror
SCOTUS has ruled in Lee v. International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc, holding unconstitutional a ban on leafleting in airport terminals.
SCOTUS has ruled in Jews for Jesus, holding unconstitutional a ban that effectively prohibited, within an airport terminal, "talking" or "the wearing of campaign buttons or symbolic clothing" that was not "airport related," noting that "no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech"
So an airport is a "public commons" even though it is usually private property. Why should YouTube be treated any differently?