137 S.Ct. at 1735-36. Indeed, social media may now be “the most important” modern forum “for the exchange of views.” Id. at 1735. The First Amendment applies to speech on social media with no less force than in other types of forums. See, e.g., Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 386 n.14 (4th Cir. 2013), as amended (Sept. 23, 2013). The Court cannot treat a First Amendment violation in this vital, developing forum differently than it would elsewhere simply because technology has made it .easier to find alternative channels through which to disseminate one’s message. Moreover, as made clear by another recent Supreme Court opinion, the government violates the First Amendment by disfavoring “offensive” speech in ways far milder than outright suppression. See Matal, 137 S.Ct. at 1753, 1765 (<HOLDING>). All of this isn’t to say that public
holding that dismissal of prior action in louisiana federal court on the grounds of the statute of limitations bar subsequent action filed in minnesota federal district court holding that state defendant waived eleventh amendment immunity to a federal claim by removing to federal court holding that the bar to federal registration of disparaging trademarks violates the first amendment notwithstanding the availability of many trademark benefits without federal registration recognizing availability of nominal damages for violations of constitutional rights notwithstanding statutory bar in prison litigation  reform act 42 usc  1997ee holding the fourteenth amendment does not apply to the actions of the federal government