"the first amendment doesn't say you can do this, so you can't" is such a deliberate misread of what the Constitution provides that I'm shocked this court could issue the ruling with a straight face. 1A is not prescriptive (it does not say, here are the things you are allowed to do and therefore if it's not on this list you can't do it), it's restrictive (here are the rights government can't take away).
Emphasis on government in that last part. In some twisted way, the court has ignored this, and said "it's ok for the government to force a private entity to express a certain speech." Which is in direct conflict with the supposed protection granted by 1A against the government restricting your ability to choose what to express on your website!
Emphasis on government in that last part. In some twisted way, the court has ignored this, and said "it's ok for the government to force a private entity to express a certain speech." Which is in direct conflict with the supposed protection granted by 1A against the government restricting your ability to choose what to express on your website!