I think this will be hard to prove. The Declaration is easy to find and read (it has its own DNS name). Is there a right to hear a message along a particular channel?
It also doesn't mean the same thing when, in many cases, the governments and the huge corporations are intermingled so heavily that public or private is more a matter of semantics than reality.
The limits of coercion that fall below the threshold of "material" are still not well-defined AFAIK.
Sure the business doesn't need the insurance but they might rethink their position the first time all their windows get smashed.
The crux of the case is whether the government was seeking to censor it, and if they did to any extent succeed in it. As I posted elsewhere, I think this is the heart of the lawsuit:
> public admissions by then-White House press secretary Jennifer Psaki that the Biden administration was ordering social media companies to censor certain posts, as well as statements from Psaki, President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas threatening them with regulatory or other legal action if they declined to do so
That right there is clearly a First Amendment Violation if the result was one less person seeing and reading it.
Nothing about the executive branch or threats
We are now being taught the lesson of why the Executive has no authority to make laws.
As Frederick Douglass, a former slave and writer, wisely stated, “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the right of the hearer as well as those of the speaker. It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.”
Doesn't that apply here?
Otherwise it might just be a random government employee gone rogue.
With executive agencies the executive does not need to pass a law or even ask permission to implement any number of rights violating policies.