If twitter were a publisher, I'd agree, re: moderation being their right. They're not. They're a publicly offered service. That means being non-discriminatory.

If twitter were a publisher, I'd agree, re: moderation being their right. They're not. They're a publicly offered service. That means being non-discriminatory. And I'm not saying they can't moderate, just that it can't be based on political affiliation or views, any more than it could be based on the users race. >The purpose of any website is completely arbitrary and determined by the creators. They can call it what they want, but if they operate it as the town square, it's the town square. The same way that a trail over private land becomes an irrevocable public right-of-way, if the land owner doesn't prevent it from being used. Private rights are forfeited by not treating them as private. Regardless, twitter openly admits it's purpose is public discourse, and designs it such that it encourages confrontational engagement. >trespassing laws to arrest Marsh for distribution of religious pamphlets You say tomato, I say being removed from privately held, but publicly accessable property based only on the content of speech. Getting kicked off the platform today is functionally equivalent to last centuries trespassing arrest/removal. Forced removal from a defacto public forum for speech.