> why shouldn't their constitutional rights extend onto that site? Because their involvement with Twitter is at will, because Twitter is a private institution,

> why shouldn't their constitutional rights extend onto that site? Because their involvement with Twitter is at will, because Twitter is a private institution, and because privacy is scared to our freedom. But mostly perhaps because twitter has not yet been designated a common carrier by the government, which many people are suggesting. I don’t really see twitter as a good fit for that, but then again, I’m not a legal scholar or lawmaker.