> Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up This claim is prime facie

> Making it a legal requirement for tweets to be treated as though they are protected speech means that Twitter cannot shut people up This claim is prime facie absurd, since the lawsuit doesn't mention Twitter as a defendant, it's unthinkable to imagine that the result of THIS lawsuit would be an injunction against Twitter. So unless you have a very compelling legal argument... > The difference here is that in the mall scenario, it is the mall that is shutting people up. In your argument, it's the government Right, exactly! In the case at hand, my point is even stronger. It's not just the mall security kicking people out, it's the city council asking the mall security to kick people out for expressing certain opinions. That's an even more obvious restriction on speech... > If it is illegal for the council to eject a Nazi from the hotel for their views, then surely it is illegal for the hotel to do the same (otherwise, the hotel could say that Republicans are not allowed). Wrong. It IS legal for the hotel to do the same! But it might not be legal for the city council to host their meeting in that hotel. > In this case, the meeting would either have to be moved or the hotel would have to change their policy. Yes. > So in this way, the hotel is threatened with the loss of business if they do not adhere to the policy of allowing all speech. And? Does the hotel have some sort of divine right to derive revenue from hosting city council meetings...? What if two different hotels want to make two different restrictions on speech? More to the point, this provides a patently obvious and absolutely unacceptable back-door for censoring public meetings -- city councils can just insist on leases that restrict criticism of policy xyz or persons abc.