tried and shot down because it’s a round peg in a square hole — it isn’t about “functioning as a public space” as you state, but “state action” because the town, while privately owned, was otherwise publicly accessible and functioned just like any other town (so the company stepped into the role of the local government and could not suppress free speech against the people who lived there). You seem to be conflating that concept with public forum doctrine, which is a more viable avenue but still has its challenges—and again, restricts the government from censoring content on FB, but does not apply to FB itself. Then there is the global nature of social media to boot, which makes it all the more complicated.
[Post edited by WahooRQ at 05/10/2019 08:45AM]