I’m glad to hear that you took a class in media law, but please understand that’s not equivalent to a class in constitutional law. I took one semester while in law school specifically devoted to this area of the law.

Again, you appear to be missing a subtle point which I will attempt to reiterate.

You are correct that no private platform is required to provide a space for me (or anyone else) to express an opinion.

What you are missing, however, is that the government cannot interfere —expressly or otherwise—with my ability to express my opinion on ANY private platform.

In other words, this isn’t about my right to express my opinion on a platform owned by a private company; it’s about my right to be free of government influence when I elect to post on a platform owned by a private company. That’s the distinction you’re missing.

It’s the difference between a direct vs indirect restraint on the freedom of expression. If the government acts indirectly —by colluding with private companies —to restrain my freedom of expression, then it has violated the First Amendment.

Conversely, if that same private company chooses not to grant me the right to express my opinion —but does so free from any government influence —that is not a violation of the First Amendment.

I’m not sure why you are having difficulty grasping this fundamental distinction. I can only assume it’s because your media law professor did not delve into these nuances with you. As a result, I’m afraid you are over-simplifying this analysis.

Please read here for further analysis:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-walker-perils-of-private-censorship-20180408-story.html