This is why I strongly support school choice. Let the parents decide how to raise their children.

Also that said, those sections of the Bible typically aren’t highlighted, aren’t graphic, don’t appear in all bibles and kids will get abridged versions.

The law prevents private social media companies from adding a warning to posts for things like misinformation. That is banning a speech for these companies.

>The second[1] looks like a workplace and education regulation, which is again well within the boundaries of things the government is charged with regulating.

Except when those regulations violate the first amendment. This law dictates what private businesses can say while training their employees. How is that not an issue of speech?

You could try search for other words or phrases like sexual orientation? You will find passages like this:

>Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

No one knows what those "state standards" are which creates a chilling effect around all discussions. Does this hypothetical conversation qualify?

First Grader: What do you do over Christmas Mrs. Smith?

Mrs. Smith: I went to visit my wife's family in Miami.

First Grader: But you are a woman, how do you have a wife?

Mrs. Smith: Not all women marry men. Some women marry other women.

---

In American constitutional law, this case established two important rules:

* under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers

* under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights

This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the federal First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center.

(Emphasis mine)

I'm not going to engage further with someone who acts like that.

You've made an argument that you're too small and insignificant, but that seems to be a matter of opinion to me. How small is too small? Consider a forum for you and your friends. How many friends are allowed on your forum before you are forced to carry any and all content that others wish to post there, and who makes that decision? Will you be forced to let Nazis on your forum? Ads? Porn? Will you be able to moderate anything at all?

Keeping the line at government/private protects Twitter, but it also protects you.