For those would-be ground-breaking attorneys looking to set a landmark case in terms of the rampant censorship by social media tech giants — yes, private companies — here’s a novel approach.

In 1946 the US Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v Alabama, in which a Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation.

Marsh argued that because the town’s roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech — and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects — the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.

In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh’s favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place.

Black also argued that the more private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to ban or control what people do on that property.

Given that Google, Twitter, Apple, Facebook, and other edge providers are publicly-accessible entities that have deliberately pushed for monopoly control over the internet, it becomes clear that Marsh v Alabama prohibits them from censoring right-wingers.

The statute would also apply to ISPs, since they wield a monopoly over internet access.

All it would take to shut down online censorship is a halfway-decent attorney arguing that these left-wing big tech companies are literally violating the First Amendment.

Nigel Farage also has an interesting take in terms of restoring equality to the internet and removing Leftist bias.

Like a cat with the trots, we just need to think a bit more “out of the box.”

Gauntlet hurled to some enterprising Conservative attorney.

Pick it up.

BZ