I am quite tardy with this (as the specific case was decided months ago), but it is now painfully clear:

Hinderaker does not even remotely understand the current state of the law as to free expression and viewpoint moderation in private clubs, as a matter of US judicial precedent.

He has regularly proposed that individual states, by local legislation, may thwart the federal First Amendment.

Not so.

Here’s the proof — a law in Florida drafted along the lines John suggested… has flamed out. Been enjoined nationwide:

…To survive strict scrutiny, an infringement on speech must further a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. See, e.g., Reed, 576 U.S. at 171. These statutes come nowhere close. Indeed, the State has advanced no argument suggesting the statutes can survive strict scrutiny. They plainly cannot.

First, leveling the playing field — promoting speech on one side of an issue or restricting speech on the other — is not a legitimate state interest. See, e.g., Arizona Free Enter. Club v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721, 749-50 (2011). Whatever might be said of any other allegedly compelling state interest, these statutes are not narrowly tailored. Like prior First Amendment restrictions, this is an instance of burning the house to roast a pig. See, e.g., Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 882; Sable Commc’n of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 131 (1989)….

Hilarious. The Texas version (signed this week by Governor Abbott) will suffer a similar fate. Hinderaker is simply wasting the local taxpayers’ money with these ill-starred — and UN-American — nonsense bills.