> only makes sense if twitter is neutral. Conservatives and Ajit Pai think twitter is not a neutral edge service. Actually, this makes the analogy an exception

> only makes sense if twitter is neutral. Conservatives and Ajit Pai think twitter is not a neutral edge service. Actually, this makes the analogy an exceptionally good one! Malls and mall owners are about as far from politically neutral as you can get, especially at the local level. I've never seen a major mall be build/renovated without some squabbling about local/regional tax policy. Politicians can't censor speech based on political content during open Q&A periods at city council meetings. And that doesn't change just because they choose to hold those meetings in the mall parking lot. From the article: When elected officials choose to give speeches in a park, hold town hall meetings in a school stadium, stand on a street corner giving safety instructions to flood victims, or debate each other on Twitter, the public’s First Amendment rights to receive those messages are triggered. > If the eff is correct, this will open the pandoras box of lawsuits from conservatives. Both sides of the isle utilize the courts to protect their first amendment rights. This has always been true and will always be true.