3 ms·

If they block someone for anyone else, you are correct. But when they block someone from the ability to interact with Trump's account (or any similar politicia

If they block someone for anyone else, you are correct. But when they block someone from the ability to interact with Trump's account (or any similar politician's), it is a position they are in only because they are doing business with the federal government. It seems natural that to the extent they do business with the federal government, they have to respect the same rules. So if they ban someone and that person is unable to respond anyone else's twitter, that is fine. But the moment they ban someone from responding to the President's twitter, they have violated that person's right in the same way the President did. I think the simplest way to think about this is to consider a simpler example. Say that a government entity is holding a town hall for public comment on some issue, but expecting a large crowd, they have to use a private venue to host it as all government venues are too small. They pick Richy Rich's Stereotypical Rich Person Club. On the day of the town hall, the club decides as a private club they want to ban some people from being on their property, thus denying them access to the town hall. What if they choose to block everyone on the opposing side of the issue? What if they block anyone who doesn't show up in a custom made suit? What if they decide to block all non-members for that day? What if they decide to block any minority? Despite it being a private company, by doing business with the government in allowing them to use the venue to host the town hall, enforcing the rules that normally a private club is legally allowed to enforce can still violate's a person's Constitutional rights.

adventured 7y ago
If logically followed, it very obviously means they can never remove any person from their platform for responding to a public official, at the very least. It entirely supersedes any restrictions that Twitter puts into their terms of service on behavior. The sole exception would be overt threats of violence, which are generally not protected as free speech in the US.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >If logically followed, it very obviously means they can never remove any person from their platform for responding to a public official, at the very least. It entirely supersedes any restrictions that Twitter puts into their terms of service on behavior. Yes, that is the cost to Twitter in hosting an official government account. If they do not like this, they can choose to not host an official government account. Same way as if a venue decides to host an official government function they forfeit their normal ability to ban people for as long as that venue is serving as an official government location. To give an extreme example, even a school cannot ban a registered sex offender from being on the premise as long as the school is serving as a voting place (assuming the individual still has their right to vote, which may possibly have been removed but isn't guaranteed).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Your extreme example... isn't great: "The court ruled the state does not violate a convicted sex offender’s voting rights by prohibiting him from voting at a polling place located in a high school, and instead requiring him to vote via one of three alternatives." https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/46959-th-circuit-prohibits-sex-offender-from-voting-at-local-high-school?v=preview https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/46959-th-circuit-p... (Plus, schools where you vote are generally owned by the state, so it's not a good example for the restrictions on private companies)
icebraining 7y ago
> they have violated that person's right That's the thing, there's no such right. There's a prohibition on government from silencing people based on their views. But this prohibition doesn't extend to private companies or private individuals, if they're acting of their own accord.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  For a private entity on its own, you are completely correct. When that private entity starts working with the government to provide an official government service, then to the extent they are providing that official government service, they are no longer just a private company on its own.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Well, maybe. MNN is a public access TV channel with an exclusive franchise agreement with the New York City government, yet the SCOTUS recently declared it wasn't a state actor for purposes of the First Amendment. As the court wrote, "the City’s designation is analogous to a government license, a government contract, or a government-granted monopoly, none of which converts a private entity into a state actor — unless the private entity is performing a traditional, exclusive public function." Since it's unlike that Twitter can be considered to be performing "a traditional, exclusive public function", it's unlikely they'll fall under that provision.

adventured 7y ago

If logically followed, it very obviously means they can never remove any person from their platform for responding to a public official, at the very least. It entirely supersedes any restrictions that Twitter puts into their terms of service on behavior. The sole exception would be overt threats of violence, which are generally not protected as free speech in the US.

SkyBelow 7y ago
>If logically followed, it very obviously means they can never remove any person from their platform for responding to a public official, at the very least. It entirely supersedes any restrictions that Twitter puts into their terms of service on behavior. Yes, that is the cost to Twitter in hosting an official government account. If they do not like this, they can choose to not host an official government account. Same way as if a venue decides to host an official government function they forfeit their normal ability to ban people for as long as that venue is serving as an official government location. To give an extreme example, even a school cannot ban a registered sex offender from being on the premise as long as the school is serving as a voting place (assuming the individual still has their right to vote, which may possibly have been removed but isn't guaranteed).
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 7y ago
  Your extreme example... isn't great: "The court ruled the state does not violate a convicted sex offender’s voting rights by prohibiting him from voting at a polling place located in a high school, and instead requiring him to vote via one of three alternatives." https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/46959-th-circuit-prohibits-sex-offender-from-voting-at-local-high-school?v=preview https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/46959-th-circuit-p... (Plus, schools where you vote are generally owned by the state, so it's not a good example for the restrictions on private companies)

icebraining 7y ago

> they have violated that person's right That's the thing, there's no such right. There's a prohibition on government from silencing people based on their views. But this prohibition doesn't extend to private companies or private individuals, if they're acting of their own accord.

SkyBelow 7y ago
For a private entity on its own, you are completely correct. When that private entity starts working with the government to provide an official government service, then to the extent they are providing that official government service, they are no longer just a private company on its own.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 7y ago
  Well, maybe. MNN is a public access TV channel with an exclusive franchise agreement with the New York City government, yet the SCOTUS recently declared it wasn't a state actor for purposes of the First Amendment. As the court wrote, "the City’s designation is analogous to a government license, a government contract, or a government-granted monopoly, none of which converts a private entity into a state actor — unless the private entity is performing a traditional, exclusive public function." Since it's unlike that Twitter can be considered to be performing "a traditional, exclusive public function", it's unlikely they'll fall under that provision.