Chess.com violates free speech rights

Well, by virtue of the Fifth Amendment, the First Amendment also prohibits states from abridging freedom of speech.  And caselaw clearly indicates that executive and/or judicial action abridging free speech is prohibited by the Constitution.  But your main point is correct:  some form of state action is required to find a constitutional violation.  Private actors generally can do what they want (e.g., censorship) without violating the First Amendment.

There are some exceptions to the general principle (discussed in my last post) that there be some state action involved in order for the federal or a state constitutional provision to be violated.  First, there are some early cases that suggest that private actors who are performing government-type functions could be constitutionally barred (e.g., 19th century caselaw on "company towns").  Second, some state constitutions have been read to bar certain private actors from restricting free speech rights of the public (e.g., the mall cases in NJ).  Finally, some recent cases have held that homeowners' associations and similar entities are barred by the Constitution from restricting the political speech of its members even where the members have signed contracts agreeing to such restrictions (e.g., no political campaign posters on front lawns).

None of these limited exceptions to the genral rule would appear to apply to chess.com.

Yes I can. (or was it yes we can?)

Screw them and there parking fines. I'll just park & pay. The moment i care they win. So, I don't...

Actually, an interesting question is whether the government can require chess.com and other websites to revise their Terms of use to permit users to use profanity or otherwise bar chess.com from censoring its users.  Any restrictions arguably violate chess.com's free speech rights!  While a full discussion of the topic is probably beyond the scope of chess.com forum discussion, I will note (for those who have read the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence) that the resolution of this question would require reconciliation of the Court's decisions in Red Lion (upholding FCC regulations aka Fairness Doctrine) and Tornillo (striking down ordinances that would require newspapers to give equal space to individuals who disagree with newspaper editorials).  More recent cases, such as Reno v. ACLU, and Brown v. Entertainment Merchants, would suggest that Red Lion is inapplicable to the internet (because the scarcity rationale does not apply).  Nevertheless, it is not completely clear what standard would apply if the government tried to force chess.com to allow users to post what they wanted without restriction.

Wow, since when are we posting on-topic?

Your free speech rights to not extend to a privately-owned internet site whose Terms of Service you contractually agreed to when you signed up.  The site has the sole discretion to regulate its content.

There we go - after only a couple of weeks I look at something JD posts and agree with every word in it. 

Thank you, Douglas.

While it is true that there is no case law that holds the internet sites cannot restrict the speech of users of the site, it is possible to construct a legal theory based on prior US Supreme Court and state supreme court precedents that would suggest that there are constitutional limits on actions by private actors.

As noted in my prior post, the US Supreme Court has held that so-called "company towns" (basically entire towns owned by a private company) are subject to First Amendment restrictions.  See Marsh v. Alabama.  The Court held that the "business district" of a company town (although technically private property) is equivalent to a public sidewalk/street.  (There are also a number of cases that hold that a private company cannot bar picketing on a public sidewalk next to the company's business.)

The US Supreme Court extended Marsh in 1968 to apply to shopping centers, holding in Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza,that a privately owned mall was the equivalent to a "business district."  However, in 1976, the US Supreme Court, in Hudgens v. NLRB, reversed course, overruling Logan Valley, holding that the First Amendment does not prohibit private mall owners from restricting picketing or pamphleting at their malls.

Subsequently, in 1980, the California Supreme Court held in Pruneyard v. Robins, that the California state constitution barred private mall owners from restricting the free speech rights of the public.  The US Supreme Court later upheld the California Supreme Court's decision in Pruneyard, holding that California's ruling did not infringe the free speech rights of the mall owners under the federal Constitution.

Since then, a handful of state courts, including the NJ Supreme Court, have held that their state constitutions require that mall owners allow the public to exercise their free speech rights on private mall property.

It is not too much of a stretch to suggest that certain internet websites are the functional equivalent to a public forum or semi-public forum, and that the private website owners may be subject to constitutional restrictions.  Moreover, state and federal governments can certainly pass laws that require internet sites to allow unfettered speech on their sites.

Sorry if someone beat me to this, since I haven't read the entire thread, but the Wars of the Roses shouldn't be characterized as a "ground up" or popular event.  It was a dynastic squabble amongst the elites.  I will agree that the other two events you mentioned had more popular participation.

For those who are opposed to imposing any restrictions on private actors like chess.com, consider the following.  Phone companies (while monopolies or at least an oligopoly) are private actors.  Arguably, the Constitution should not bar any actions taken by the phone companies.  What if a phone company published terms and conditions of use that allowed them to monitor your phone calls and censor your calls (e.g., bleep out your words or cut off your call) if the phone company deemed your conversation "inappropriate."  Some would argue that a phone company would never do that since they would lose customers.  However, given that there are a limited number of competitors (especially for local phone service) in many areas, it is quite possible for all of the phone companies to promulgate the same rules and policies, which would mean that a customer would have to accept censorship if he/she wanted phone service.  Do you think that this would be a proper outcome (i.e., censorship by the phone company, which is a private actor)?

Actually there is a US Supreme Court case that deals with similar facts, namely a "company town".  Marsh v. Alabama 326 U.S. 501 (1946).

pt22064....'er Counsel....Thank you for your 1st Amendment insight....it's been very interesting and just really good stuff !

I understand your arguments made in theory.  However, chess.com is not a "company town."  There are other sites that provide similar opportunities.

Rather than argue the esoteric, consider the relationship between the owner and operators of the site, and its membership, to be regulated under the contract known as the "Terms of Service."  This contract was agreed to voluntarily by the registrant.

Yes, I believe that I cite Marsh in one of my posts, although I did not include the full citation.  Also, I had remembered it as being a much older case (1800s), but it is apparently of more recent vintage (but still old).

Anyone arguing that Chess.com is anologous to a company town is a moron plain and simple.

Well, I did note that it was merely a potential legal theory -- not necessarily a winning legal theory.  However, the fact that the TOS was "voluntarily" agreed to by the user is not necessarily dispositive.  There was a recent NJ Supreme Court decision holding that homeowners associations could not restrict its members from posting political campaign signs on their lawns even though the homeowners signed agreements stating that they agreed to follow all of the rules of the homeowners association.  Notably, the association is a private entity (not a governmental entity), and the Court held that the state constitution limited what restrictions it could impose on its homeowners.

                        "Why do people pay money to have their free speech rights violated?".   A hooker did that to me last week, and she violated more than my free speech rights.

Ronald!

                   She was a very nice hooker. All I did was ask for a cigarette.