Not how Free Speech works.
Corporations have had the same rights as people since 1886. You want to make a free speech claim need to focus on that precedent. Amazon has the right to allow whatever speech they want on their service or not.
That is their free speech right.
When this is combined with a Term of Service that Parler signed it is more a breech of contract argument and speech has nothing to do with it.
Isn't Parler built on ActivityPub? . Can't people get their own servers in the basement and connect them together? May have dropped it...Hard stack to manage
You want free speech. Own your server.
Corporations have the rights of people. Who you serve as a customer and how you choose to spend money have long precedent as speech, and the more conservative the court gets the stronger free speech precedent in terms or corporations get.
Think about Parler's position. They need to argue that Amazon does not have the right to remove a tool that was used to organize a seditious attack on the Capitol. It is not a tenable or palatable case.
The anti-trust. Yes I can get behind that. Not a free speech argument.
Has nothing to do with free speech. At no time in history have we allowed four corporations to own every single piece of literary practice. We have for the last 12 years. But again I think the answer is get a server in your basement and network with others servers if you want control. As a society we need to do this for our public schools and libraries. Root literacy where it belongs.
Maybe if we did that we wouldn't have a bunch of folks railing against basic math and facts.
Section 230 has nothing to do with free speech.
It is a liability shield that does not hold platforms responsible for user generated content.
When conservative voices are calling forregulating social media to ensure free speech they go against free market doctrine. Any attempt to limit free speech by removing the ability for companies to censor would require ISPs to be reclassified as common carriers like other telecommunications. This has not been the goal of the Republican FCC.
Conservatives need to think about the dangers of precedent. You are saying the government has the right to allow any kind of speech on private property. Look at the cases around malls and airports and free speech. In the first example, the private "town square" argument did not hold. In the latter example public safety took precedent
. Should I be allowed to stand on any church grounds and claim I found the true lord and savior in a KFC biscuit? This is what Parler is asking for in their suit.They want Amazon to allow any and all content. They want Amazon to give up the free speech right of censorship.
Parler could not exist without section 230. They would have been sued out of existence from the beginning. This is what makes hearing, "Repeal Section 230 to protect free speech," so silly. It is like the battle cries of, "Stop socialism to keep government hands off my medicare."