And I’m not 100% sure Facebook is under no legal obligation to protect first amendment rights by claiming they’re a private company and participation is voluntary so they are free to do what they want.

 I can find no reference in US law of a private company being prosecuted for not allowing the public to use their property to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.  (1st Amendment rights are not anti-discrimination rights for anyone incapable of understanding what the 1st Amendment is).

 Facebook does not have to allow you to use it any more than this very forum does.  If you get banned can you sue because your 1st Amendment "right" was "violated"?  

 However other avenues that are NOT the 1st Amendment do apply.  We will never be able to discuss it here on this forum because some members will continue to insist the "violation of our rights" is from FB and not the sole responsibility of the US Government.  Also insisting it is the 1st Amendment FB is violating and not other, actual real violations supported by US law.


 This one articulates the issue clearer:

https://www.talksonlaw.com/briefs/does-the-first-amendment-require-social-med...

Professor Strossen underscores that the protections granted by the First Amendment apply solely to government infringements on free speech and do not extend to privately-owned entities such as Facebook and Twitter. She clarifies that these platforms, akin to traditional media outlets like the New York Times or CNN, possess their own First Amendment rights, thereby having no obligation to accommodate content or viewpoints they deem objectionable.

However, the significant role these platforms have as a "modern public square"—acknowledged in the unanimous 2017 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Packingham v. North Carolina—raises profound concerns about equal and fair access. Strossen posits that due to the significance of these platforms, government officials, human rights agencies, and activists will likely continue to push for equitable access to social media through new regulations, rather than relying solely on First Amendment protections.

 Bottom line is people "Want" Facebook to be at fault because they did something they do not like.  Unfortunately US law isn't formulated or enforced based off what people like.

Facebook does not have to allow you to use it any more than this very forum does.

But that brings up what I think might be the opening to a first amendment challenge, and it has to do with size and influence. This forum has no impact whatsoever on anything remotely resembling the big picture. Facebook, however, is regularly used by millions including the US government to alert citizens of serious issues and concerns. I think a good attorney could argue it has become an integral part of society for enough of the population, that it is a de facto brick in the foundation of free speech. At least that’s what I would argue. If I were your financial consultant, I would advise you not to bed against it!

But that brings up what I think might be the opening to a first amendment challenge, and it has to do with size and influence.

 Except courts have ruled for years that it doesn't.  For instance when network television was the method to reach millions and millions of viewers a day, they still, not once, ever had to protect your 1st Amendment rights on their network.  You have no right to broadcast on their channel.

 When newspapers reached millions in NY per day, not one newspaper was ever required to protect your 1st Amendment rights and allow you to say anything you want in their print.  Nothing about size or influence requires a private company to assume the responsibilities of the US Government in regard to the 1st Amendment.


Facebook, however, is regularly used by millions including the US government to alert citizens of serious issues and concerns. I think a good attorney could argue it has become an integral part of society for enough of the population, that it is a de facto brick in the foundation of free speech.

 Government entities using social media do have to honor your 1st Amendment rights.  Private companies do not.  Facebook doesn't even have to allow the Government to use their platform.  Again because they have no obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights.  They can kick oh I don't know, the POTUS right off their platform, and his only recourse would be to make a whole other social media company.   Surely if FB was obligated to protect our 1st Amendment rights they would have to allow the darn President to be on their property.

 Unfortunately there must be zero good lawyers in the US, because not one has been able to articulate an argument that forces FB to allow all US Citizens to use their private property.