What Vance is trying to do is skirt a fundamental part of the Constitution as it pertains to constitutional rights, which is the state action doctrine. For the most part, unless you’ve been accused of a crime, your rights as an American are guaranteed as restrictions against—not entitlements to—government action. In short, if Google removes your video from YouTube or Walmart kicks your protest out of its parking lot, you don’t have a case under the First Amendment. In fact, the First Amendment is what protects Google’s and Walmart’s right to remove your speech from their property. Clear distinctions are drawn between private actors (regardless of their characteristics) and the state because private actors do not have the lawful authority to involuntarily deprive you of your rights and property. The government can put you in jail, or worse. Google can’t. However, if the state action doctrine were so easily circumnavigated as Vance suggests, then it’s hard to see who among us would still benefit from the full protections of the Bill of Rights. Government privileges? Infrastructure? Most Americans have attended public schools and use the highways. Millions receive subsidized food, mortgages, student loans, health insurance, etc. This would also draw in businesses that benefit from intellectual property protections and people who receive Social Security. Congress has created countless subsidies and programs that confer special treatment to many sectors of the economy. Taking advantage of the ubiquitous impacts of our ever-growing government does not mean you forfeit your fundamental constitutional rights.