I like where this is going. The court is saying that the big platforms are basically public forums. So, the big boys - YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and the like - have no business banning or restricting anyone. AND they have no business effing with the algorithms to keep you from seeing what you went there to see.
Iâm not sure the court said that. But it is a logical conclusion to what the court said if the banning or restricting is the result of actions or settings of a government employee.
Trump canât block people because he has created a pubic platform as a politician.
However, Twitter can block people period.
Therefore, if it is a public platform which all can participate in how can Twitter then block people from responding to Trump.
Because it is not the governmen who is limiting speech.
But it doesnât seem right does it? Maybe Twitter is guilty of violating civil rights if a person is stopped from being part of the public dialogue with a government official.
This is new ground I think.
They way this is headed is that your local public school superintendent cant block you either. Twitter, Facebook, etc
Given how itâs the leftists that try to stop speech the most, this backfired on more than AOC.
If the court ruled Trumpâs tweets are a public platform and all should be able to access and respond, how can they respond if Twitter has banned them from the site?
I think it presents a legal conundrum for Twitter.
Definitely new ground for ALL platforms that allow politicians to use them to reach the public.
I hope trump does not fight it. Let the ridiculous ruling show the effect of ridiculous judges
Actually, let the fall out begin for the ridiculous censorship the sites pull against conservatives.
As we have seen here though⌠most cannot find a reasonable position to take. It comes down to people thinking that to be fair it is an all or nothing proposition.
This is a really well written article on why this ruling was wrong.
Ginsburg is the circuit justice for the 2nd. She likely weighed in.
Are lawyers arguing against this decision because it is a bad decision, or are they arguing against it because they donât like the outcome? As a Section 230 Public Platform, if thatâs really what Twitter is (if itâs not a publisher), now Americans have the legal right to sue Twitter for blocking access to the platform or censoring their speech. Now thereâs legal precedent that the first amendment applies even on Twitter, at least in conversations involving elected officials.
Section 232 is a separate issue! The OP is stating that the court ruling is incorrect based on ones use such as a Government entity being able to block users access based on having powers to control a private space owned by a private company. There has to be an exchange of money and rental agreement between the Two parties in which affords the renter such rights! Trump in this case has no such rights to claim because there is no such agreement, as Twitter owns the platform and they can do as they wish as it states in their policies to which users sign up for in the initial terms!
âEarlier today the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that Donald Trump cannot block Twitter users from following his @realDonaldTrump account. Itâs an interesting decision from an ideologically diverse judicial panel that at first glance appears to be a straightforward application of conventional First Amendment law. Itâs also wrong. It makes a crucial error that reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of speech on private social-media platforms.
Boiled down to its essence, the courtâs reasoning contained two key elements. First, it ruled that Trumpâs Twitter account represents an outlet for official communications and interactions that is controlled by President Trump. Second, it found that under these circumstances, Trumpâs decision to block users represents impermissible state action undertaken to suppress dissent.
The first element is fundamentally mistaken. By no traditional legal measure of âcontrolâ does Trump control his Twitter account. Twitter owns and controls his account, and he has no legal right to wrest control of it from Twitter. The courtâs misunderstanding of the platform is made evident by this deeply flawed analysis:
The fact that government control over property is temporary, or that the government does not âownâ the property in the sense that it holds title to the property, is not determinative of whether the property is, in fact, sufficiently controlled by the government to make it a forum for First Amendment purposes. See Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 547â52 (1975) (holding privatelyâowned theater leased to and operated by city was public forum). Temporary control by the government can still be control for First Amendment purposes.
There is no âcontrolâ at all, temporary or otherwise. When a politician rents a theater or other private venue, there is typically an exchange of money and a rental agreement that explicitly grants enforceable legal rights to access the property and control othersâ access to the property, and â critically â limits the landlordâs power during the course of the rental.
Compare that level of control to the absolute lack of rights the user has under Twitterâs terms of service:
We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason, including, but not limited to, if we reasonably believe: (i) you have violated these Terms or the Twitter Rules or Periscope Community Guidelines, (ii) you create risk or possible legal exposure for us; (iii) your account should be removed due to prolonged inactivity; or (iv) our provision of the Services to you is no longer commercially viable.â
Furthermore section 232 grants Tech companies privileges from being sued, and only congress has the power to remove it! Being designated a platform is not the same as a publisher, this ruling doesnât make that distinction. Congress would have to make that determination. If congress decides that Twitter, Google are publishers then the 232 designation can be removed and itâs only then they become susceptible to lawsuits!
Unlike most mere mortals Trump is out here playing 4D chess with the entire global system how does he come up with these plans only God knows Donald trump is in a measurable genius
Does this mean I can get my Twitter account back without using a different email???
No that is not what this means! They can still block you!