You certainly have not demonstrated any understanding of the "law" as you call it. Perhaps you should ask your school for your money back.
It won't serve any purpose to call you unreasonable back. So, perhaps you ought to read up on a reliable source
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-1/the-public-forum
As I see it, you are stretching the limits of what is considered a public forum in that an operative word in the definition of public is "government".
You strike me as someone who interprets the law as something that is subject to your interpretation and your interpretation only.
My arguments were intended to be unreasonable in nature as an attempt to get you to realize the unreasonableness of your own arguments. At least you recognized that my arguments were unreasonable; however, I think you failed to reflect on your the unreasonablness of your own arguments.
So now you've let the community know that you minored in law and that it is apparent that consider yourself an expert. I bet your college teachers would be very proud of you.
EDIT: To quote something pertinent directly from the above link:
I hear you and people of a similar mindset constantly claiming that forums like facebook and others are subject to letting any joe schmoe say anything that they want on their sites. However, clearly the above quote states "government" may not discriminate different kinds of messages.
Unless facebook or other similar forums like you tube have become arms of the government (heaven forbid), free speech laws do not apply to them. And a simple reading of the First Amendment of the US Constitution also clearly says the same thing.
There it is in plain language, but I just do not get why so many people seem to think that it applies to any entity whether or not that entity is governmental, and established precedent in law backs the governmental definition of public forum and how it is applied. There is no debating this. In order to have your definition of public forum be established law or precedent, the constitution of the US would need to be changed to fit your definition. Personally, I don't think the constitution being altered to fit your definition of public forum is likely to actually happen.
And one final edit - by letting any joe schmoe say anything they want on a site like facebook or you tube, those sites themselves could very well be held liable for content posted by some joe schmoe user that is well outside of the limits of what SCOTUS itself has determined is "free speech". Which, if you are not aware, does not include things like inciting violence.
If you want such content to be allowed, then start your own site, and be held legally responsible then the content that is posted that is well outside established law.
Reliable sources of what is law are so easy to find, like this one, too
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/forums read it and note it applies to "government" in all cases. Yet the free speech experts that post to TS seem unable to find such sources. Wonders never cease.