Honestly, that article is starting to make it sounds pretty legal. In a hypothetical scenario where the USG tells Twitter to take down X post or we'll pass a f

Honestly, that article is starting to make it sounds pretty legal. In a hypothetical scenario where the USG tells Twitter to take down X post or we'll pass a future law. Whats the difference between that scenario and a City telling a Bank to remove a billboard or we'll re-zone you? > In another case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected claims that a city violated a billboard owner’s First Amendment rights when it “politely but firmly suggested” that the bank that owned the plot of land on which the billboard stood “remove the unsightly billboards” and noted the possibility that, if the bank did not prove “interested in being responsive to this community[,]” the city might be forced to resort to costlier “legal procedures.” Because the city’s letters to the bank contained no “enforceable threats,” and the only sanctions the city could bring to bear against the bank were “civil or administrative proceedings under a zoning ordinance not yet drafted[,]” the Third Circuit held that the decision to terminate the billboard owner’s lease was private action beyond the scope of the First Amendment and that this was true even though the bank admitted that it removed the billboard in order to maintain its good relations with the city.