https://m.imdb.com/news/ni64788450/?ref_=nws_nwr_li

‘January 6 was just the warm-up’: the film that tracks three Maga extremists storming the Capitol

Social media is both good and bad.

As I understand it, the 1st isn't carte blanche. SCOTUS has defined some limits. And those who own the platforms can make their own rules.

So, your harping about the left and the 1st, and so forth, is really a load of BS.

No right including the Incorporated 1st Amendment which is a favored child of the Court is absolute.

The phrase “no right is absolute” is a direct quote from Incorporation Doctrine cases including the first.

The basic explanation is state action regulating the 1st must be 1 narrowly tailored so as not to limit or chill more activity than necessary as to be overboard and 2 the state must demonstrate a compelling state interest in seeking to regulate the speech.

This is not at play in this matter bc even META says the decision was ultimately Their decision. In addition, the Court has resolved this finding no government action. No one has identified the majority’s opinion in failing to address the issue under the correct legal analysis of the controlling case law.

Folks can disagree w the conclusion. However, true critique requires identifying how the Court misapplied existing caselaw or ignored it entirely.

Ultimately, I respect the S. Ct., position under our Constitution as the final arbitrator. I can disagree. I can advocate for a different result in the future when long standing and relied upon precedent is broken or not followed. I can have nothing but contempt for individual justices. However, the decision is theirs.

Most here complaining will never read the case.

The first rule of analyzing a question of whether the state/government has violated a recognized right is there a state/government actor?

When there is no state or government actor, there is no violation of an Incorporated Right through the 14th Amendment analysis to make.