2 ms·

The court is taking a large step in defining twitter as a public space. When private property is so functionally akin to public property that it is deemed a pu

by belorn 7y ago

The court is taking a large step in defining twitter as a public space. When private property is so functionally akin to public property that it is deemed a public forum then it is within precedence that the private owner may also be restricted in denying speech based on the First Amendment. Marsh v. Alabama, the Court held that the private owner of a company town could not forbid distribution of religious materials by a Jehovah’s Witness on a street in the town’s business district. The town, wholly owned by a private corporation, had all the attributes of any American municipality, aside from its ownership, and was functionally like any other town. In those circumstances, the Court reasoned, “the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.”. An other case is the Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> The court is taking a large step in defining twitter as a public space. It is not; it is defining the Presidents Twitter account (or perhaps more accurately the discussion space created by direct interaction with that account) as a limited public forum. The distinction between the narrower space and the whole of Twitter is significant. Were the court to find Twitter as such to be a (limited or otherwise) public forum, that would be a very different story, but finding that government use of Twitter creates a space within Twitter that is a limited public forum is a very different thing. > An other case is the Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza. And a later Supreme Court decision, cutting the opposite way from Logan Valley Plaza (1968), is Lloyd Corp v. Tanner (1972).
- belorn 7y ago
  Lets focus what the court actually wrote. The claim I did was that the court took a step towards having twitter defined as a public space. "Parker wrote, noting that Trump left his account public and enabled anyone to engage with it" I would say that covers the wast majority of twitter accounts, as most accounts are public and enable anyone to engage with it. Other social media platforms may have other ratios of public and private accounts. Parker ended the opinion with what he called a reminder to both parties in the case and the public: "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less." They court did explicitly say that they did not consider if twitter as a whole should be considered as public forum or not. They did however lay the ground work for it by answering A) if online social media can be considered public forum, B) what attributed and circumstances makes an account a public forum. The whole text: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1365-trump-twitter-second-circuit-r/c0f4e0701b087dab9b43/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1365-trump-twitter-s... Some important quotes: "That account has interactive features open to the public, making public interaction a prominent feature of the account". "Opening an instrumentality of communication for indiscriminate use by the general public creates a public forum."

by belorn 7y ago

dragonwriter 7y ago

> The court is taking a large step in defining twitter as a public space. It is not; it is defining the Presidents Twitter account (or perhaps more accurately the discussion space created by direct interaction with that account) as a limited public forum. The distinction between the narrower space and the whole of Twitter is significant. Were the court to find Twitter as such to be a (limited or otherwise) public forum, that would be a very different story, but finding that government use of Twitter creates a space within Twitter that is a limited public forum is a very different thing. > An other case is the Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza. And a later Supreme Court decision, cutting the opposite way from Logan Valley Plaza (1968), is Lloyd Corp v. Tanner (1972).

belorn 7y ago
Lets focus what the court actually wrote. The claim I did was that the court took a step towards having twitter defined as a public space. "Parker wrote, noting that Trump left his account public and enabled anyone to engage with it" I would say that covers the wast majority of twitter accounts, as most accounts are public and enable anyone to engage with it. Other social media platforms may have other ratios of public and private accounts. Parker ended the opinion with what he called a reminder to both parties in the case and the public: "If the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less." They court did explicitly say that they did not consider if twitter as a whole should be considered as public forum or not. They did however lay the ground work for it by answering A) if online social media can be considered public forum, B) what attributed and circumstances makes an account a public forum. The whole text: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1365-trump-twitter-second-circuit-r/c0f4e0701b087dab9b43/optimized/full.pdf#page=1 https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1365-trump-twitter-s... Some important quotes: "That account has interactive features open to the public, making public interaction a prominent feature of the account". "Opening an instrumentality of communication for indiscriminate use by the general public creates a public forum."