unnamednewbie13 wrote:Twitter is a tool. Going back to stuff like train cars and carrier pigeons for a moment: if the soap box company reclaims their box, a politician can still give a speech. Find another box.
Twitter, etc., should not be nationalized. And the government setting up its own service to compete would be a whole different can of worms to open.
The supreme court has already determined that you're wrong, bad luck.
I'm not going to dwell on it but your timing on this is really sus. Three pages of objections to twitter finally enforcing its (perfectly reasonable) glorification of violence ban policy. How much did you even think about twitter on a daily basis before the donald was ejected?
Big tech and social media are influential, yes. The power given to them by people (esp. a sitting president using their personal social media account in an official capacity - a mistake that should never be repeated) should probably be checked. But a social media platform should be able to make its own decisions to the extent that a publisher can decide to reject someone's terrible book (without curbing their "first amendment rights" I might add).
First Amendment protections against government censorship do not apply if Twitter “decides it is not going to participate in disseminating someone else’s message,” said Jeremy Mishkin, a lawyer with Montgomery McCracken in Philadelphia who practices First Amendment law. A newspaper, for instance, is not required to publish a politician’s news release, Mishkin said.
Whether or not Trump can ban/block followers/users from his posts is a separate issue from whether or not twitter can ban a user. I might add that if Trump gets back into it after the end of his presidency, he'll probably be able to block other users once more.
Back in August:
The case grew out of a challenge brought by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which sued on behalf of seven individuals blocked by Mr. Trump after criticizing his policies.
Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute's executive director, said the justices should decline to take up Mr. Trump's appeal.
"This case stands for a principle that is fundamental to our democracy and basically synonymous with the First Amendment: government officials can't exclude people from public forums simply because they disagree with their political views," Jaffer said in a statement.
The administration argued in its appeal that the Supreme Court, not lower courts, "should decide where to draw the line between the President's personal decisions and official conduct."
The pace of the case was slowed by the coronavirus pandemic, as well as by Mr. Trump's decision to ask the full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the ruling by a three-judge panel. The court refused to do so by a 7-2 vote in March. Two Trump appointees, Judges Michael H. Park and Richard J. Sullivan, were the only members of the court to side with the president.
The president should not use their personal social media account in any kind of official capacity (let alone issuing allcaps threats against sovereign nations), nor ask the supreme court to get involved in their private dispute.
The Supreme Court is an important institution, to be sure, but they are not the word of god. Do you have any idea how often the US changes rules on stuff? "Bad luck," super mature take, as expected from someone who wept at Captain Marvel.
Anyway, I can see Trump getting back into it after the end of his presidency with the regained ability to once again block other users.