3 ms·
> it's not the public square Then it shouldn't be used as a public square. It's really that simple. Twitter isn't being compelled to do anything either way! B
by throwawayjava 9y ago
> it's not the public square
Then it shouldn't be used as a public square.
It's really that simple. Twitter isn't being compelled to do anything either way! But if Twitter isn't an appropriate setting for a public forum, then the gov't can be forced not to use Twitter for certain things.
This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features.
> Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.
There are strict rules that separate public service from campaigning activities.
So one important factual question in this case is what side of that divide the accounts in question (e.g., @realdonaldtrump) are on.
- rayiner 9y ago> This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features. This is the heart of it. The mall can do what it wants, but the public official can’t direct mall security to kick out people with protest signs.
- kencausey 9y agoWhat if the mall owner or manager felt he knew the official well and assumed that he would prefer the protesters be removed? If he had them removed without any communication with the official would that be a violation?
- kthejoker2 9y agoIt primarily depends on who is funding the politician's venture within the mall. If it's the taxpayers then that removal would constitute a First Amendment violation even without direction of the government itself. Which is why your local reps office isn't inside a mall, because the mall wouldn't want the unblockable distraction of protesters or public events.