Judge has ruled Twitter could be sued on basis of misleading users, due to platform’s promise not to ban accounts on basis of viewpoint or political affiliation. "Unconscionable contract" Reddit advertised itself similarly to gain user & content they produce. https://sp.reddit.com/propaganda.html
When protect the right to free speech in any age or place, it comes along with defending the rights of people who most would find objectionable, but if their right is protected, then less offensive or objectionable people who might be in the minority want to oppose something they see as unjust , can do so while feeling safe that the repercussions will be minor or absent.
In this case a person who is a white advocate(mislabeled as a white nationalist) is holding the social media platform twitter to its commitments and promises, and by doing so they can ensure that an advocate of any race, religion, or philosophy can speak up also.
Here are some articles about the case:
California Judge Rules Twitter CAN Be Sued for Falsely Advertising Free Speech
Lawsuit over white nationalist's Twitter ban clears hurdle
Twitter to Face Claims by ‘White Advocate’ Over Banned Accounts
Reddit has also made similar commitments in their announcements and comments by the admins. The advertisements of such started near the beginning of the founding of the website.
You can find some examples here of reddits advertising.
Some notable examples:
SAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH USE REDDIT.COM
today's headlines -- choosen by readers, not editors
like democracy? you'll love reddit.com
1776 freedom of the press | 2006 freedom from the press
Also on a similar note there is the recent ruling that Trump can not block people on twitter, which may or may not have implications on whether social media can block people also, as twitter is an American company.
Posted Jun 19, 2018, 4:57 AM UTC · edited
I was curious about this case:
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/lawsuit-white-nationalists-twitter-ban-clears-hurdle-55920765
And then I read this:
Randazza certainly isn't a perfect person, but he's one hell of a lawyer and defender of the First Amendment. He's pretty far from being a white nationalist; he'd only take on a case like this if he genuinely believed the arguments he has to make.
I did a pretty deep dive into the case here, it's a very interesting approach and I think it has a lot of merit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/subredditcancer/comments/84i3vq/til_that_californias_constitution_contains_an/