5 ms·
Free speech rules are more complicated than that. [0] When a person or company owns a "public square" that is open to the general public under some circumstance
by barbacoa 6y ago
Free speech rules are more complicated than that. [0] When a person or company owns a "public square" that is open to the general public under some circumstances they can become defacto state actors and lose their right to discriminate what people are allowed to say on their property.
We have never seen that be applied to the internet but in principle twitter is very much the modern day town square of discourse.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
- caseysoftware 6y agoAnd what's interesting is that Trump's Twitter account specifically was declared a "public square" when he was forced to unblock users in 2018. Since that's the case (as ruled), blocking EVERYONE from accessing that account seems like a larger violation. The suit argued that Trump blocked the plaintiffs after they criticized the president, which constituted "viewpoint discrimination.” Being that the President’s Twitter, @RealDonaldTrump, is a public forum, that would be in violation of their First Amendment rights to free speech. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan agreed with the plaintiffs. Ref: https://mashable.com/article/trump-unblocks-twitter-accounts/ https://mashable.com/article/trump-unblocks-twitter-accounts...
- rswail 6y agoThe argument that @realDonaldTrump was viewpoint discrimination is because that twitter account was being used as a defacto mouthpiece of the US government. As such, people engaging with it are entitled to 1A protection. That doesn't mean that Donald Trump is entitled, either as an individual, or as POTUS, to have a Twitter account.