I think the court would have to thread the needle on whether:
(1) the function of the site is like a private club whose secrets are vital to its continued existence,
(1a) the language in the ToS supports (1)
(2) the private news items shared there are in the public interest and likely not reported on otherwise (at least the ones that were disclosed publicly).
No one likes chilled speech but there's plenty of examples of legitimate agreements for non-disclosure. Those agreements provide mutual benefit and could be threatened by a ruling in favor of a claimant against NextDoor.
Their not claiming non disclosure. Just the right to kick you off their service (out of their club) if they don’t like what you do. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” That is, in fact, a legally protected right in the United States. A constitutional right by some arguments.
See, for example, the Boy Scouts vs a long list of gays, atheists, and girls, where this was affirmed numerous times by the Supreme Court.
You interestingly seem to believe your first amendment rights free you from any repercussions.
That is ... not supported by law.
You have strongly confused prior restraint laws (IE what you'd be punished for publishing and what people can prevent you from publishing) and contract law (IE whether they can legally keep you off the site, enjoin you from doing so further, and receive money damages).
I still feel like people havent figured out this internet thing.
If I want to report on a post by say some scrubby Islamic State propagandist I'm going to do it. They can ban me but it will just become part of the reporting. Then give me a few minutes and I'll be back on the site doing my thing again.
Terrible terms of service don't make a private garden. Neither does IP/phone number fingerprinting. I agree with you though, it is not that complicated.
