The rules around what constitutes a true public forum and what the public forum doctrine even means are fuzzy, but in all cases the term refers to a space owned or created by the government.

Thus, a shopping mall, parking lot, or internet forum, being owned by a private company, is not a public forum and can’t really be defended on the basis of the public forum doctrine.

Finally, as @Blazingtransfem98@discuss.online points out, none of this matters anyway in cases of incitement to imminent lawless action like threats or terrorist speech, which the First Amendment does not protect.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

See the US section, the use of the term "public space" in this conversation is acceptable as the term "public" is used in opposition to privately owned and not public in the sense that it's open to the public like a mall is.

.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_space

The government cannot usually limit one's speech beyond what is reasonable in a public space, which is considered to be a public forum (that is, screaming epithets at passers-by can be stopped; proselytizing one's religion probably cannot).

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 2 points 5 days ago

that’s fair, i’ll edit to say speaks unclearly rather than misspeaks. thanks for the clarification :)