JomRob could offer any percent to invitation-only investors in a ***private equity*** arrangement. BUT if JimRob’s business is publicly traded, he must allow Alex Jones to set up and operate a website or in the case of FR, a separate chapter.
An analogy would be a public restaurant that rents out private rooms to parties. As long as the private parties abstain from disrupting, interfering with other private rooms such as walking in and telling other private parties to leave, they are allowed to carry on any activity that is legal. Other patrons and customers are unaffected as long as they stay out of the private rooms.
Each person that enters Alex Jones website or YouTube channel or similar is doing so on their own volition. No one is forcing them to listen to Alex Jones or to buy his products.
If a customer has an inclination to access the Alex Jones party in the Infowars private room, the public restaurant can do nothing to impede that.
However, if the public restaurant is or goes private, as in a private club, then the club can set any policy for its members, as long as it’s legal.
Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter, and any other publicly traded corporation must allow law-abiding customers, patrons, members EQUAL ACCESS to what the these publicly traded corporations are offering unless there are premium offerings for which customers must pay a premium. But even in the context of premium offerings, a publicly traded corporation is not allowed to deny access to premium services and products to any law-abiding customer that has the means to purchase them.
Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter are NOT privately owned businesses, they are owned by the public. For example, Zuckerberg as Founder and CEO of Facebook does not own private shares of Facebook. He owns public shares, common or preferred, in Facebook. Derivatives are not ownership instruments, shares are. Zuckerberg owns public shares and as CEO his shareholdings must be made public.
As long as an activity of a patron or customer is legal, these publicly owned corporations cannot alter, abridge, or suppress rights. These publicly traded entities have TOS = Terms of Service that all members agree to abide by, but the TOS is not law and can be challenged. If Alex Jones is banned because a publicly traded entity declares he has violated their TOS, they better be able to back it up else he can sue for all the damages and lost business suffered as a result.
Insanely wrong.
Other than some securities laws publicly and privately held corporations are treated the same under the law.
You seem to be confused by the term publicly held. It doesn't mean that the corporation is owned by the general public - it isn't - it just means some portion of the equity is available for sale to the general public.
There are publicly owned enterprises - libraries, some universities, statutory corporations in many states and municipalities, etc. - which are owned by all citizens because they're funded by taxes, but that's not what we're talking about.
A publicly owned enterprise has to accommodate everyone because everyone is an owner.
With a few exceptions, which I'll get to, a publicly held company only has to accommodate it's shareholders to the extent that they get a vote.
There are public accommodation laws that say enterprises which are generally open to the public can't discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin", and in some states there are LGBT protections, but these laws apply equally to public and private companies (there are exemptions for private clubs and religious exemptions), so the ownership structure of FR or FB doesn't enter into it.
More to the point, no law prohibits discrimination on the basis of political viewpoint.
As long as the private parties abstain from disrupting, interfering with other private rooms such as walking in and telling other private parties to leave, they are allowed to carry on any activity that is legal.
No, they can carry on any activity that the owner agrees to in the rental agreement.
But even in the context of premium offerings, a publicly traded corporation is not allowed to deny access to premium services and products to any law-abiding customer that has the means to purchase them.
Absolutely wrong unless they're discriminating on the basis someone's membership in a protected class as I described above.
Where did you get this idea?
Facebook, Google/Youtube, Twitter are NOT privately owned businesses...
Again, other than securities laws I challenge you to cite a law that applies differently to FB than to FR.