Wrong.
‘Free speech’ is not ‘restricted’ because there are ample other opportunities for one to self-express – that Woods is being discussed on USMB, which is social media, and likely other online venues, is proof of that, having nothing to do with ‘free speech.’
Now, if Congress were to pass a law penalizing social media for discussing Woods, or penalizing Woods himself for accessing social media, that would be preempting and restricting free speech because there would be no other online venue for Woods to use, since all social media would be equally subject to the same penalties and refuse to accommodate Woods in an effort to avoid being penalized by government.
Indeed, that’s a criterion the courts use to determine if government has acted contrary to the First Amendment – are there ample other channels of communication afforded to the speaker with this government restriction in place, and if not, then the courts would invalidate the government’s restriction.
The right to free speech is not ‘absolute,’ it is not a right to say anything you want anywhere you want and at any time – the right is subject to reasonable limits and restrictions by government consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence; and with regard to the private sector – private social media, private political parties, and private individuals – the doctrine of free speech doesn’t apply at all.
en.wikipedia.org
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/6LZ62QNONVJWJDD7DKLV5QG5IE.jpg)
www.reuters.com
www.splcenter.org
www.politico.com
www.forbes.com
