3 ms·

But you are missing the part where Trump is allowed to pick the private company, and is thus able to pick one which enforces a ToS that the government would not

But you are missing the part where Trump is allowed to pick the private company, and is thus able to pick one which enforces a ToS that the government would not be able to enforce themselves. This creates a loophole where by the government only has to pick private companies that ban anyone who is against the current government to get a defacto censor on the public square that wouldn't otherwise be allowed.

anigbrowl 8y ago
I m not missing that part, because it hasn't happened yet. Imaginary injuries don't have evidentiary value, regardless of their potential possibility; thus it would be improper for a court to pronounce upon them - that's what legislators are for. You're overlooking the fact that requiring Twitter to retroactively alter its own terms of service once it provided services to the government would be a violation of the takings clause. In your hypothetical example, it's more likely that a court would enjoin the government official from use of the company with the overly restrictive ToS for official business, rather than forcing the firm to alter its policy.
- echotango 8y ago
  Do you think federal courts would ban President Hillary from twitter because twitter has a policy of banning right-wing speech Hillary wouldnt be allowed to ban herself?
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  >I m not missing that part, because it hasn't happened yet. I'm glad I don't live in a world where people refuse to prepare for court cases until the actual injury has happened. Many legal groups have built plans and arguments for potential injuries, either to test if their clients can do some behavior, or to have a proactive case against the government if the government takes some action. For example, many times when the ACLU challenges a law in court, they were planning for it long before the law actually passed. They can't engage in the actual challenge until there are injuries, but they sure can discuss it and plan for it. In this particular instance, I'm not trying to launch an actual court case, so the court rules of when you have standing for a court case don't apply.
  - anigbrowl 8y ago
    If you had read to the end of my post, you'd have seen the part where I addressed your objection.

anigbrowl 8y ago

I m not missing that part, because it hasn't happened yet. Imaginary injuries don't have evidentiary value, regardless of their potential possibility; thus it would be improper for a court to pronounce upon them - that's what legislators are for. You're overlooking the fact that requiring Twitter to retroactively alter its own terms of service once it provided services to the government would be a violation of the takings clause. In your hypothetical example, it's more likely that a court would enjoin the government official from use of the company with the overly restrictive ToS for official business, rather than forcing the firm to alter its policy.

echotango 8y ago
Do you think federal courts would ban President Hillary from twitter because twitter has a policy of banning right-wing speech Hillary wouldnt be allowed to ban herself?
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>I m not missing that part, because it hasn't happened yet. I'm glad I don't live in a world where people refuse to prepare for court cases until the actual injury has happened. Many legal groups have built plans and arguments for potential injuries, either to test if their clients can do some behavior, or to have a proactive case against the government if the government takes some action. For example, many times when the ACLU challenges a law in court, they were planning for it long before the law actually passed. They can't engage in the actual challenge until there are injuries, but they sure can discuss it and plan for it. In this particular instance, I'm not trying to launch an actual court case, so the court rules of when you have standing for a court case don't apply.
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  If you had read to the end of my post, you'd have seen the part where I addressed your objection.