4 ms·

I think the legal precedent that Prager U should have targeted was Marsh vs Alabama. In that ruling, the state held that under certain conditions private prope

I think the legal precedent that Prager U should have targeted was Marsh vs Alabama. In that ruling, the state held that under certain conditions private property could become a public forum. For example, Knight vs Trump basically held that Twitter was enough of a public forum that the president could not block people on his twitter account (here's a counter argument to that decision: https://abovethelaw.com/2019/07/twitter-is-not-a-public-forum/ https://abovethelaw.com/2019/07/twitter-is-not-a-public-foru...). I'd be curious to know why Prager U didn't try to argue that youtube is a public forum. Youtube is by default open to the public to post speech on, and it holds a near monopoly position on its particular product, much like twitter. The hitch in this plan is that from my understanding, Knight didn't argue that all of twitter was a public forum, they just argued that Trump's account was a public forum. Despite that, it seems a little contradictory to me to have legal system where twitter is considered a quasi public forum, and youtube it not.

javagram 7y ago
The difference in Knight v Trump was that in that case it was President Trump, a public official of the United States, doing the censoring. The reasoning is that it’s similar to a government official holding a meeting, or other such public forum. That has to be open to all comers without viewpoint discrimination. But it doesn’t mean a private business can’t block people from their accounts - just that it’s illegal for a government official to use that feature.
- tynpeddler 7y ago
  > The reasoning is that it’s similar to a government official holding a meeting, or other such public forum. That has to be open to all comers without viewpoint discrimination. Except this isn't true. There are a number of exceptions where a public official can hold a meeting that is open to the public but only allows very specific topics to be discussed as chosen by the public official. In some cases, only the official may speak which means it isn't a public forum at all. Public officials in public meetings even have the power to exclude people based a a variety of criteria such as the case where someone is disrupting the meeting, or a press briefing. Knight vs Trump ruled that none of those exceptions could apply to Trump on Twitter, in essence making Trump's twitter account a completely public forum whether he wanted to or not. In the case of Marsh vs Alabama, both parties involved were private. My point in bringing up Knight vs Trump was to point out that the issue of social platforms as public forums has already been decided in very narrow cases. It seems like Prager U's best legal strategy would be to argue for the expansion of the public forum designation to apply to youtube. A number of people in this very thread have expressed sympathy to that approach so it's not out of left field. Without youtube being declared a public forum, Prager U's first amendment approach is dead on arrival as the court rightly pointed out in this case.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    >in essence making Trump's twitter account a completely public forum whether he wanted to or not Yes, but even with that ruling Twitter is still free to ban people from its platform and even prevent them from viewing Trump's tweets by blacklisting spammer and scraper IPs from it's platform, or even restrict and delete Trump's account. The court declaring Trump's twitter account a public forum does not change any of that. No can sue Twitter over that for not being able to view Trump's tweets. So this is not relevant at all.

javagram 7y ago

The difference in Knight v Trump was that in that case it was President Trump, a public official of the United States, doing the censoring. The reasoning is that it’s similar to a government official holding a meeting, or other such public forum. That has to be open to all comers without viewpoint discrimination. But it doesn’t mean a private business can’t block people from their accounts - just that it’s illegal for a government official to use that feature.

tynpeddler 7y ago
> The reasoning is that it’s similar to a government official holding a meeting, or other such public forum. That has to be open to all comers without viewpoint discrimination. Except this isn't true. There are a number of exceptions where a public official can hold a meeting that is open to the public but only allows very specific topics to be discussed as chosen by the public official. In some cases, only the official may speak which means it isn't a public forum at all. Public officials in public meetings even have the power to exclude people based a a variety of criteria such as the case where someone is disrupting the meeting, or a press briefing. Knight vs Trump ruled that none of those exceptions could apply to Trump on Twitter, in essence making Trump's twitter account a completely public forum whether he wanted to or not. In the case of Marsh vs Alabama, both parties involved were private. My point in bringing up Knight vs Trump was to point out that the issue of social platforms as public forums has already been decided in very narrow cases. It seems like Prager U's best legal strategy would be to argue for the expansion of the public forum designation to apply to youtube. A number of people in this very thread have expressed sympathy to that approach so it's not out of left field. Without youtube being declared a public forum, Prager U's first amendment approach is dead on arrival as the court rightly pointed out in this case.
- belltaco 7y ago
  >in essence making Trump's twitter account a completely public forum whether he wanted to or not Yes, but even with that ruling Twitter is still free to ban people from its platform and even prevent them from viewing Trump's tweets by blacklisting spammer and scraper IPs from it's platform, or even restrict and delete Trump's account. The court declaring Trump's twitter account a public forum does not change any of that. No can sue Twitter over that for not being able to view Trump's tweets. So this is not relevant at all.