Originally posted on Quora October 14, 2021

Sources: Marsh v. Alabama Pruneyard Shopping Center v.Robbins

Absolutely, if the town square is privatized should the right to protest or voice grievances be quashed just because a private company owns a public space? Should ISPs and wireless services be able to deny service on ideological or religious grounds? How about utility companies, landlords or mortgage lenders? The original intent of the first amendment was to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion and censoring freedom of speech. Some states originally had state sanctioned religions and censored speech they found offensive and controversial. Southern states made abolitionist publications illegal and the state of New Hampshire once banned Catholics from holding public office or teaching. It wasn’t until the 14th amendment was ratified that the first amendment and the rest of the bill of rights were incorporated and expanded in scope to cover state and municipal government. The 1946 first amendment case Marsh v. Alabama expanded the scope of free speech, press and religion to privately owned places with public accommodation when SCOTUS recognized the right of a Jehovah's Witness to distribute religious content in a privately owned town square near Mobile, AL. Building off of Marsh v. Alabama, The PruneYard v. Robbins decision allowed states to expand the scope of first amendment protection within privately owned spaces with public accommodation to include political speech and protesting. So the argument that the first amendment only limits congress or the government is a completely disingenuous red herring given the history of how the first amendment has been altered since its inception.