Originally Posted by
tehdang
You should read the second circuit's decision on calling tweets/responses a public forum. They made clear that his tweets constituted one deserving of first amendment protection. But since the case wasn't about Twitter bans, it didn't cover all aspects that implicate first amendment protections.
That decision completely confirms my position, and contradicts yours. So I really don't know where you think you're going, here.
Same question as previous, do you care in a public forum if you can't respond to a President's tweets because he blocked you, or because Twitter blocked him?
Only the former. Because the difference matters.
When you address your city council, do you care if you get thrown out by a member, or by the building's owner that doesn't like what's discussed?
You realize it would be stupid for the city council to hold important meetings in some private establishment, right? Which is why they don't?
Trump's an idiot, and that's what led to the issues.
You're acting like this isn't about the first amendment, so establish some relevance, perhaps by quoting Clarence Thomas or the Second Circuit's decision that was appealed then vacated.
Use of social media is only going to involve the 1st Amendment when it's government actions taken to restrict communications on that platform. Which it was, when Trump wanted to ban people for ideological reasons from his Twitter. And wouldn't be, if it were Twitter banning them for TOS violations.
Here's the text of the 1st Amendment, since people seem to constantly forget what it says;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Note the first word, there. Congress shall make no laws that do such things. It says nothing about rules private citizens can implement on their own property.
The 1st Amendment only restricts government action. It has no relevance to any other actor. Twitter literally cannot violate the 1st Amendment, not unless the government is the entity forcing them to take that action in the first place.