3 ms·
> That is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment. The problem is, he has not censored their speech. The message still goes out, it just never reaches Tru
by nv-vn 9y ago
> That is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment.
The problem is, he has not censored their speech. The message still goes out, it just never reaches Trump's mailbox. Like I stated in the above comment, the First Amendment does not guarantee an audience. Trump has not stopped messages from being tweeted, just from those tweets reaching him.
> Twitter is also not being restricted at all. They can block anyone that they want.
By setting a precedent that Twitter, as a private organization, can be the provider of a public space for free speech, does that not force them to keep everyone's views on the platform?
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago> Trump has not stopped messages from being tweeted, just from those tweets reaching him. Incorrect. You are describing what would happen if he "muted" the accounts. He didn't do that; he "blocked" them. That has much broader effects such as preventing them from following his messages or publicly replying to his messages. He has created a public forum with his tweets and then allowed some people to participate in that forum and disallowed some people from participating solely based on their viewpoints. That is textbook censorship. > By setting a precedent that Twitter, as a private organization, can be the provider of a public space for free speech, does that not force them to keep everyone's views on the platform? No. Twitter is not forced to do anything. Trump is forced to choose a communications platform that is compatible with his First Amendment obligations. If Twitter does not allow him to meet those obligations he must choose a different communications platform. He cannot avoid the First Amendment simply by conducting his communications through a third party.