> Therefore, if the first amendment is applied to Twitter, it means the content not allowed to be restricted is Twitter's speech. If there exists a bulletin bo

> Therefore, if the first amendment is applied to Twitter, it means the content not allowed to be restricted is Twitter's speech. If there exists a bulletin board in the community square, and I put a poster on it, it is still my speech even though it exists on the bulleting board. It is certainly not "the bulletin board's" speech. Twitter also mentions legal precedent that directly contradicts your claim here. Legally speaking, in the United States, my tweets are considered my speech, and not twitter's. > But they do this selectively: they'll only allow government censorship when they feel like it Yes, this is their right, as protected by the first amendment. Twitter is under no obligation to treat all users, content, etc. in the same way. They do not have to be impartial. They are allowed to treat certain users better than others (and they do, in all kinds of ways!).