3 ms·
>The internet is still an open place, and there are plenty of venues You are absolutely right that putting all the eggs in one basket is a textbook mistake, an
by dexen 7y ago
>The internet is still an open place, and there are plenty of venues
You are absolutely right that putting all the eggs in one basket is a textbook mistake, and one should diversify communication channels & sources of income.
>nor the right to publish using someone else's equipment
Two legal cases come to mind:
the recent decision that POTUS twitter feed is a public space (https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitter-account-is-a-public-forum-97159 https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitt...)
and the 1980 decision in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins where, based on Californian law, private property of the shoping mall was deemed open to political speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...).
It's perfectly fine for FB, Twitter, Google & friends to declare themselves editorial organizations rather than open platforms. However it's worth noting Section 230 protections hinge on being a platform.
- otterley 7y ago> the recent decision that POTUS twitter feed is a public space (https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitt... https://theconversation.com/federal-judge-rules-trumps-twitt...) Interestingly, the opinion did _not_ conclude that Twitter itself is a public forum and therefore must allow all speakers to use it and viewpoints to be presented. Instead, it concluded that the _President's Twitter account_ is a public forum for the purpose of answering the question whether the President can block others' accounts from responding to it. As for _Pruneyard_, that case is about freedom of speech under the California Constitution, and has narrowed by subsequent law, but it remains an open question as to whether "open to the public means all content must be permitted" under CA law in the social media context.
- milankovic 7y agoYou really think that this distinction holds up? Twitter, per se, not a public forum, but a specific account on Twitter (or what shall be the definition?) can actually be a public forum? And in doubt, who gets to draw the line?