4 ms·

One could argue that Twitter is a de-facto public place. The Supreme Court opined: “the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the

One could argue that Twitter is a de-facto public place. The Supreme Court opined: “the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” (Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 506 (1946) They have since narrowed their interpretation somewhat, but some states (including California) have ruled that de-facto public gathering places such as shopping malls are areas where free speech is protected, even though they are privately owned. So generally, yes a private platform can do what they want, but if their primary focus is to be open to the public, they may be more bound to providing first amendment protections. AFAIK no court has specifically ruled on whether online public spaces should be treated the same as physical public spaces.

travisathougies 5y ago
It doesn't really matter though, because in California, the state constitution explicitly states that privately owned spaces open to the public (so twitter) must guarantee freedom of expression. The case law is pretty absolute and settled in this regard. Most famously... shopping malls in California have to allow union protests within the malls (with only mild regulation, mainly around safety / opening hours). Thus, by the Supreme Law of the state of California, as a private company, Twitter is legally obligated to -- at least for California residents -- not restrict their legally protected speech. Twitter frequently does this to california residents, thus violating California law. If the law was applied equally, they would be fined and censured as the malls were who tried to union bust.