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, notin

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."