> That's the entire claim Twitter is making! Nothing about speech! Two of the three paragraphs are about speech. Including the first one. First, while the

> That's the entire claim Twitter is making! Nothing about speech! Two of the three paragraphs are about speech. Including the first one. First, while the burden of establishing fair use is “always” on the putative infringer in a copyright action, this is not a copyright action. It is pre-suit discovery being sought from Twitter about one of its users. A platform’s ability to assert the First Amendment’s protections on behalf of its anonymous users is well-established and is not diminished upon mention of copyright. And as a matter of policy, a platform must be permitted to raise fair use on behalf of its users to protect continued creative fair use on that platform and to prevent copyright law from being weaponized to suppress and censor speech critical of a public figure. Sounds like speech to me. (And of course, it is, because the virtual nature of Twitter allows them to make arguments that presence and interactions is speech, whereas if there was a store selling this content and they knew who he was because he came into the store to sell it to them, they wouldn't be able to).