2 ms·
That sounds like Twitter's 1a rights were violated, not the politician who was banned. Twitter is always free to ban who it wants from its platform. Even if it
by bastawhiz 5y ago
That sounds like Twitter's 1a rights were violated, not the politician who was banned. Twitter is always free to ban who it wants from its platform.
Even if it was litigated and decided that they were indeed coerced, there's nothing requiring them to reinstate the account, no?
Moreover, this wasn't the first suspension. It would be an underwhelming argument to claim that someone who repeatedly broke the rules (five times?) was banned permanently—the final punishment per the policy—because a government official said so.
- beerandt 5y agoThis situation is different, yes, but I was highlighting how flexible the meaning of "coercion" is in similar case law, especially with a court determining twitters rights/obligations as to unmasking a user's info, in addition to the rights of the one being unmasked. Separately there are plenty of cases exploring whether private parties are acting as an agent for the government for the purposes of determining constitutionality of various behaviors. It doesn't require actual agency or even an explicit or implicit directive. Often it's enough that that the party holds government-similar authority/power over the victim in the context of the scenario, and/or that the governments interests or incentives are sufficiently aligned such that the result is effectively indistinguishable.