Court decision against trump means Twitter can no longer kick off conservatives

a reply to: Grambler

Right. But this was ruled by the courts, not Twitter. This is a big deal. The "block" function is a business platform. Not a government one, but now I guess it is.

So.... Now Twitter can't claim all of this to just be a private business thing due to public forum and all that... So it seems. But Twitter STILL gets to decide what is offensive, threatening, "hate speech" and soon "harassment".

Mark my words, Grambler. Take care.

a reply to: ScepticScot

It can either be dealt with by consumer action. The good old free market.

The "good old free market" is why Twitter is so powerful in the first place. It's a free service, so as long as they have the best (as in, most preferred) features and the largest group, they will draw more people. Online free services are not subject to competition the way other businesses are because they're free. There is no monetary variable to offset quality.

Or it it can be dealt with by legislation.

That's exactly what this ruling did. It established Twitter as a platform used for government purposes. That requires Twitter to comply with 1st Amendment concerns because it is a government venue. That has nothing to do with it being owned by a public or private entity... it has received funds (via page views, which are funds for any online business as they convert directly to funds through advertising revenue) from government usage, so it has accepted that role.

Now, if Twitter were to establish a company policy that stated that no official government business could be conducted or official government statements dispersed via its platform, that would all change. But as long as it profits from being a government venue, whether official or de facto, it is liable for 1st Amendment concerns.

Can't have your cake (get the benefits of being the "go-to" place to hear from any number of officials) and eat it too (get to decide which political views are acceptable on its platform).

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

It can either be dealt with by consumer action. The good old free market.

The "good old free market" is why Twitter is so powerful in the first place. It's a free service, so as long as they have the best (as in, most preferred) features and the largest group, they will draw more people. Online free services are not subject to competition the way other businesses are because they're free. There is no monetary variable to offset quality.

Or it it can be dealt with by legislation.

That's exactly what this ruling did. It established Twitter as a platform used for government purposes. That requires Twitter to comply with 1st Amendment concerns because it is a government venue. That has nothing to do with it being pwned by a public or private entity... it has received funds (via page views, which are funds for any online business as they convert directly to funds through advertising revenue) from government usage, so it has accepted that role.

Now, if Twitter were to establish a company policy that stated that no official government business could be conducted or official government government statements dispersed via its platform, that would all change. But as long as it profits form being a government venue, whether official or de facto, it is liable for 1st Amendment concerns.

Can't have your cake (get the benefits of being the "go-to" place to hear from any number of officials) and eat it too (get to decide which political views are acceptable on its platform).

TheRedneck

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...


This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

The ruling establishes that Trump ( and other public officials) using Twitter can't block people from participating if using It for public business.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people. Yet no where us this being suggested as the outcome of this trial. Not on left or right media, Not by Trump, not by the justice department and not by Twitter.

That isn't an argument from authority, it's pointing out the obvious.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...

I won't disagree with that; no "pure" economic system is perfect. I will say that free market economics are the most stable system known, where they are applicable. Free market is not applicable to free services, necessary services (as in utilities or, incidentally, health care), and monopolies.

This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

It doesn't create new law. All it does is establish Twitter as a government venue. The law has always been that no private organization can impede the people's right to participate in their government.

Most speeches are held in private venues. If these speeches are official government functions, no official can refuse entry based on political views. But also, the private venue cannot deny access based on political views. If the occasion is an official government function, the right of the people to participate cannot be denied by government or private entities unless for non-political reasons (such as public safety or legal violations).

That is already the law. The court found that the Twitter platform falls into the same category, so Trump cannot block users over political views. Neither can AOC, although she is not mentioned in the decision. Neither can Twitter. Once Twitter became the host of an official government interaction, the right of the people to participate in their government overrides the right to set up private policies for users.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

Court decisions don't work like that. Yes, it states that "President Donald Trump" cannot block user participation, because this lawsuit was specifically against "President Donald Trump." However, the decision will apply to any situation that meets the criteria laid down in the ruling. It does not have to specify what the requirements are for a public forum; it only needs to state that Twitter is in this case a public forum. It does this by using the logic that public forum rules apply.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

All court rulings have unstated implications. The backbone of the law is that it applies equally. What applies to one person or group must also apply to all persons or groups under similar circumstances.

Personally, I am withholding judgement for now. This carries a lot of implications that could have good or bad consequences. I want to consider them before I decide if I agree with the ruling or not. I am in this thread not to take sides, but to explain and consider the explanations of others.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people.

Agreed.

As to why it is not headline news, few appellate court rulings are (unless they appear to be anti-Trump, at least for the last few years). Chances are very good that this case will go on to the Supreme Court before becoming precedent; at that point, I'm sure everyone will be talking about it.

Some of the most far-reaching decisions in history were quietly decided with little fanfare... legaleeze is difficult for many people. Difficult does not make for good ratings, and news coverage is all about ratings, not news.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Excellent post.

Here is another example I thought of.

This ruling says that trumps (or any governmental officials) tweets are governmental discussion that people have the right to see or discuss

Now people are arguing that trump can’t block, but the company hosting the governmental discussion can because they are private

So another right we have that is similar to being involved in a governmental discussion is voting

My polling place happens to be in a private church


Now imagine people arguing sure the poll workers can’t kcik out voters for ideological reasons, but the owner of the church building can

It’s absurd

Once a private entity hosts a public governmental business that all people have the right to participate in, they can’t keep people from excercising their rights for ideological reasons

a reply to: Grambler

Really? I thought one had to be in the middle of the Bible Belt for polling to be in a church!

My poll is the back room of a little country store, but when they can't host it, the backup is in the church next door. In both cases, the poll workers have full control and the property owner has none, other than to refuse to host in the first place. I have seen poll workers throw people out of the store for talking politics during voting too close to the back room!

Public right to participate trumps the right to private control of property.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Gojira54
a reply to: Sillyolme

They kicked me off for ideological reasons.

As always, Silly is dead wrong

They kicked you because you violated their terms of service. Not because you are a conservative.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...

I won't disagree with that; no "pure" economic system is perfect. I will say that free market economics are the most stable system known, where they are applicable. Free market is not applicable to free services, necessary services (as in utilities or, incidentally, health care), and monopolies.

This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

It doesn't create new law. All it does is establish Twitter as a government venue. The law has always been that no private organization can impede the people's right to participate in their government.

Most speeches are held in private venues. If these speeches are official government functions, no official can refuse entry based on political views. But also, the private venue cannot deny access based on political views. If the occasion is an official government function, the right of the people to participate cannot be denied by government or private entities unless for non-political reasons (such as public safety or legal violations).

That is already the law. The court found that the Twitter platform falls into the same category, so Trump cannot block users over political views. Neither can AOC, although she is not mentioned in the decision. Neither can Twitter. Once Twitter became the host of an official government interaction, the right of the people to participate in their government overrides the right to set up private policies for users.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

Court decisions don't work like that. Yes, it states that "President Donald Trump" cannot block user participation, because this lawsuit was specifically against "President Donald Trump." However, the decision will apply to any situation that meets the criteria laid down in the ruling. It does not have to specify what the requirements are for a public forum; it only needs to state that Twitter is in this case a public forum. It does this by using the logic that public forum rules apply.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

All court rulings have unstated implications. The backbone of the law is that it applies equally. What applies to one person or group must also apply to all persons or groups under similar circumstances.

Personally, I am withholding judgement for now. This carries a lot of implications that could have good or bad consequences. I want to consider them before I decide if I agree with the ruling or not. I am in this thread not to take sides, but to explain and consider the explanations of others.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people.

Agreed.

As to why it is not headline news, few appellate court rulings are (unless they appear to be anti-Trump, at least for the last few years). Chances are very good that this case will go on to the Supreme Court before becoming precedent; at that point, I'm sure everyone will be talking about it.

Some of the most far-reaching decisions in history were quietly decided with little fanfare... legaleeze is difficult for many people. Difficult does not make for good ratings, and news coverage is all about ratings, not news.

TheRedneck

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users. I think the you are seeing things in ruling that just aren't there. If the judgement meant something as significant at Twitter can't ban people then this would quite specifically be stated.

The court case itself has been widely reported yet I have yet to see any reporting that backs up the OP. If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people. The fairly obvious answer would be that it simply doesn't do what the OP claims.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...

I won't disagree with that; no "pure" economic system is perfect. I will say that free market economics are the most stable system known, where they are applicable. Free market is not applicable to free services, necessary services (as in utilities or, incidentally, health care), and monopolies.

This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

It doesn't create new law. All it does is establish Twitter as a government venue. The law has always been that no private organization can impede the people's right to participate in their government.

Most speeches are held in private venues. If these speeches are official government functions, no official can refuse entry based on political views. But also, the private venue cannot deny access based on political views. If the occasion is an official government function, the right of the people to participate cannot be denied by government or private entities unless for non-political reasons (such as public safety or legal violations).

That is already the law. The court found that the Twitter platform falls into the same category, so Trump cannot block users over political views. Neither can AOC, although she is not mentioned in the decision. Neither can Twitter. Once Twitter became the host of an official government interaction, the right of the people to participate in their government overrides the right to set up private policies for users.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

Court decisions don't work like that. Yes, it states that "President Donald Trump" cannot block user participation, because this lawsuit was specifically against "President Donald Trump." However, the decision will apply to any situation that meets the criteria laid down in the ruling. It does not have to specify what the requirements are for a public forum; it only needs to state that Twitter is in this case a public forum. It does this by using the logic that public forum rules apply.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

All court rulings have unstated implications. The backbone of the law is that it applies equally. What applies to one person or group must also apply to all persons or groups under similar circumstances.

Personally, I am withholding judgement for now. This carries a lot of implications that could have good or bad consequences. I want to consider them before I decide if I agree with the ruling or not. I am in this thread not to take sides, but to explain and consider the explanations of others.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people.

Agreed.

As to why it is not headline news, few appellate court rulings are (unless they appear to be anti-Trump, at least for the last few years). Chances are very good that this case will go on to the Supreme Court before becoming precedent; at that point, I'm sure everyone will be talking about it.

Some of the most far-reaching decisions in history were quietly decided with little fanfare... legaleeze is difficult for many people. Difficult does not make for good ratings, and news coverage is all about ratings, not news.

TheRedneck

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users. I think the you are seeing things in ruling that just aren't there. If the judgement meant something as significant at Twitter can't ban people then this would quite specifically be stated.

The court case itself has been widely reported yet I have yet to see any reporting that backs up the OP. If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people. The fairly obvious answer would be that it simply doesn't do what the OP claims.

A counter-factual claim is not a sufficient argument for the obvious reasons.

Anyone can see the official’s tweets even if they’ve been banned. I don’t even have a twitter account and I can see the tweets.

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...

I won't disagree with that; no "pure" economic system is perfect. I will say that free market economics are the most stable system known, where they are applicable. Free market is not applicable to free services, necessary services (as in utilities or, incidentally, health care), and monopolies.

This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

It doesn't create new law. All it does is establish Twitter as a government venue. The law has always been that no private organization can impede the people's right to participate in their government.

Most speeches are held in private venues. If these speeches are official government functions, no official can refuse entry based on political views. But also, the private venue cannot deny access based on political views. If the occasion is an official government function, the right of the people to participate cannot be denied by government or private entities unless for non-political reasons (such as public safety or legal violations).

That is already the law. The court found that the Twitter platform falls into the same category, so Trump cannot block users over political views. Neither can AOC, although she is not mentioned in the decision. Neither can Twitter. Once Twitter became the host of an official government interaction, the right of the people to participate in their government overrides the right to set up private policies for users.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

Court decisions don't work like that. Yes, it states that "President Donald Trump" cannot block user participation, because this lawsuit was specifically against "President Donald Trump." However, the decision will apply to any situation that meets the criteria laid down in the ruling. It does not have to specify what the requirements are for a public forum; it only needs to state that Twitter is in this case a public forum. It does this by using the logic that public forum rules apply.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

All court rulings have unstated implications. The backbone of the law is that it applies equally. What applies to one person or group must also apply to all persons or groups under similar circumstances.

Personally, I am withholding judgement for now. This carries a lot of implications that could have good or bad consequences. I want to consider them before I decide if I agree with the ruling or not. I am in this thread not to take sides, but to explain and consider the explanations of others.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people.

Agreed.

As to why it is not headline news, few appellate court rulings are (unless they appear to be anti-Trump, at least for the last few years). Chances are very good that this case will go on to the Supreme Court before becoming precedent; at that point, I'm sure everyone will be talking about it.

Some of the most far-reaching decisions in history were quietly decided with little fanfare... legaleeze is difficult for many people. Difficult does not make for good ratings, and news coverage is all about ratings, not news.

TheRedneck

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users. I think the you are seeing things in ruling that just aren't there. If the judgement meant something as significant at Twitter can't ban people then this would quite specifically be stated.

The court case itself has been widely reported yet I have yet to see any reporting that backs up the OP. If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people. The fairly obvious answer would be that it simply doesn't do what the OP claims.

A counter-factual claim is not a sufficient argument for the obvious reasons.

Anyone can see the official’s tweets even if they’ve been banned. I don’t even have a twitter account and I can see the tweets.

The ability read tweets isn't I believe basis for the judgement. I don't know counter factual claim you are referring to.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...

I won't disagree with that; no "pure" economic system is perfect. I will say that free market economics are the most stable system known, where they are applicable. Free market is not applicable to free services, necessary services (as in utilities or, incidentally, health care), and monopolies.

This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

It doesn't create new law. All it does is establish Twitter as a government venue. The law has always been that no private organization can impede the people's right to participate in their government.

Most speeches are held in private venues. If these speeches are official government functions, no official can refuse entry based on political views. But also, the private venue cannot deny access based on political views. If the occasion is an official government function, the right of the people to participate cannot be denied by government or private entities unless for non-political reasons (such as public safety or legal violations).

That is already the law. The court found that the Twitter platform falls into the same category, so Trump cannot block users over political views. Neither can AOC, although she is not mentioned in the decision. Neither can Twitter. Once Twitter became the host of an official government interaction, the right of the people to participate in their government overrides the right to set up private policies for users.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

Court decisions don't work like that. Yes, it states that "President Donald Trump" cannot block user participation, because this lawsuit was specifically against "President Donald Trump." However, the decision will apply to any situation that meets the criteria laid down in the ruling. It does not have to specify what the requirements are for a public forum; it only needs to state that Twitter is in this case a public forum. It does this by using the logic that public forum rules apply.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

All court rulings have unstated implications. The backbone of the law is that it applies equally. What applies to one person or group must also apply to all persons or groups under similar circumstances.

Personally, I am withholding judgement for now. This carries a lot of implications that could have good or bad consequences. I want to consider them before I decide if I agree with the ruling or not. I am in this thread not to take sides, but to explain and consider the explanations of others.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people.

Agreed.

As to why it is not headline news, few appellate court rulings are (unless they appear to be anti-Trump, at least for the last few years). Chances are very good that this case will go on to the Supreme Court before becoming precedent; at that point, I'm sure everyone will be talking about it.

Some of the most far-reaching decisions in history were quietly decided with little fanfare... legaleeze is difficult for many people. Difficult does not make for good ratings, and news coverage is all about ratings, not news.

TheRedneck

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users. I think the you are seeing things in ruling that just aren't there. If the judgement meant something as significant at Twitter can't ban people then this would quite specifically be stated.

The court case itself has been widely reported yet I have yet to see any reporting that backs up the OP. If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people. The fairly obvious answer would be that it simply doesn't do what the OP claims.

A counter-factual claim is not a sufficient argument for the obvious reasons.

Anyone can see the official’s tweets even if they’ve been banned. I don’t even have a twitter account and I can see the tweets.

The ability read tweets isn't I believe basis for the judgement. I don't know counter factual claim you are referring to.

A counterfactual claim goes something like this: “if X was true, then Y would have happened”, for instance your claim that “If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people.”

The courts pretended that a twitter account is the same as a flesh and blood human being, even using the terms “user” and “person” interchangeably. Twitter accounts don’t have rights.

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...

I won't disagree with that; no "pure" economic system is perfect. I will say that free market economics are the most stable system known, where they are applicable. Free market is not applicable to free services, necessary services (as in utilities or, incidentally, health care), and monopolies.

This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

It doesn't create new law. All it does is establish Twitter as a government venue. The law has always been that no private organization can impede the people's right to participate in their government.

Most speeches are held in private venues. If these speeches are official government functions, no official can refuse entry based on political views. But also, the private venue cannot deny access based on political views. If the occasion is an official government function, the right of the people to participate cannot be denied by government or private entities unless for non-political reasons (such as public safety or legal violations).

That is already the law. The court found that the Twitter platform falls into the same category, so Trump cannot block users over political views. Neither can AOC, although she is not mentioned in the decision. Neither can Twitter. Once Twitter became the host of an official government interaction, the right of the people to participate in their government overrides the right to set up private policies for users.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

Court decisions don't work like that. Yes, it states that "President Donald Trump" cannot block user participation, because this lawsuit was specifically against "President Donald Trump." However, the decision will apply to any situation that meets the criteria laid down in the ruling. It does not have to specify what the requirements are for a public forum; it only needs to state that Twitter is in this case a public forum. It does this by using the logic that public forum rules apply.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

All court rulings have unstated implications. The backbone of the law is that it applies equally. What applies to one person or group must also apply to all persons or groups under similar circumstances.

Personally, I am withholding judgement for now. This carries a lot of implications that could have good or bad consequences. I want to consider them before I decide if I agree with the ruling or not. I am in this thread not to take sides, but to explain and consider the explanations of others.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people.

Agreed.

As to why it is not headline news, few appellate court rulings are (unless they appear to be anti-Trump, at least for the last few years). Chances are very good that this case will go on to the Supreme Court before becoming precedent; at that point, I'm sure everyone will be talking about it.

Some of the most far-reaching decisions in history were quietly decided with little fanfare... legaleeze is difficult for many people. Difficult does not make for good ratings, and news coverage is all about ratings, not news.

TheRedneck

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users. I think the you are seeing things in ruling that just aren't there. If the judgement meant something as significant at Twitter can't ban people then this would quite specifically be stated.

The court case itself has been widely reported yet I have yet to see any reporting that backs up the OP. If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people. The fairly obvious answer would be that it simply doesn't do what the OP claims.

A counter-factual claim is not a sufficient argument for the obvious reasons.

Anyone can see the official’s tweets even if they’ve been banned. I don’t even have a twitter account and I can see the tweets.

The ability read tweets isn't I believe basis for the judgement. I don't know counter factual claim you are referring to.

A counterfactual claim goes something like this: “if X was true, then Y would have happened”, for instance your claim that “If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people.”

The courts pretended that a twitter account is the same as a flesh and blood human being, even using the terms “user” and “person” interchangeably. Twitter accounts don’t have rights.

That's not actually a counter factual claim.

The courts aren't pretending that Twitter accounts are the same as people. They are saying that public officials can't block people on Twitter, if using It for official business.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...

I won't disagree with that; no "pure" economic system is perfect. I will say that free market economics are the most stable system known, where they are applicable. Free market is not applicable to free services, necessary services (as in utilities or, incidentally, health care), and monopolies.

This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

It doesn't create new law. All it does is establish Twitter as a government venue. The law has always been that no private organization can impede the people's right to participate in their government.

Most speeches are held in private venues. If these speeches are official government functions, no official can refuse entry based on political views. But also, the private venue cannot deny access based on political views. If the occasion is an official government function, the right of the people to participate cannot be denied by government or private entities unless for non-political reasons (such as public safety or legal violations).

That is already the law. The court found that the Twitter platform falls into the same category, so Trump cannot block users over political views. Neither can AOC, although she is not mentioned in the decision. Neither can Twitter. Once Twitter became the host of an official government interaction, the right of the people to participate in their government overrides the right to set up private policies for users.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

Court decisions don't work like that. Yes, it states that "President Donald Trump" cannot block user participation, because this lawsuit was specifically against "President Donald Trump." However, the decision will apply to any situation that meets the criteria laid down in the ruling. It does not have to specify what the requirements are for a public forum; it only needs to state that Twitter is in this case a public forum. It does this by using the logic that public forum rules apply.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

All court rulings have unstated implications. The backbone of the law is that it applies equally. What applies to one person or group must also apply to all persons or groups under similar circumstances.

Personally, I am withholding judgement for now. This carries a lot of implications that could have good or bad consequences. I want to consider them before I decide if I agree with the ruling or not. I am in this thread not to take sides, but to explain and consider the explanations of others.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people.

Agreed.

As to why it is not headline news, few appellate court rulings are (unless they appear to be anti-Trump, at least for the last few years). Chances are very good that this case will go on to the Supreme Court before becoming precedent; at that point, I'm sure everyone will be talking about it.

Some of the most far-reaching decisions in history were quietly decided with little fanfare... legaleeze is difficult for many people. Difficult does not make for good ratings, and news coverage is all about ratings, not news.

TheRedneck

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users. I think the you are seeing things in ruling that just aren't there. If the judgement meant something as significant at Twitter can't ban people then this would quite specifically be stated.

The court case itself has been widely reported yet I have yet to see any reporting that backs up the OP. If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people. The fairly obvious answer would be that it simply doesn't do what the OP claims.

A counter-factual claim is not a sufficient argument for the obvious reasons.

Anyone can see the official’s tweets even if they’ve been banned. I don’t even have a twitter account and I can see the tweets.

The ability read tweets isn't I believe basis for the judgement. I don't know counter factual claim you are referring to.

A counterfactual claim goes something like this: “if X was true, then Y would have happened”, for instance your claim that “If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people.”

The courts pretended that a twitter account is the same as a flesh and blood human being, even using the terms “user” and “person” interchangeably. Twitter accounts don’t have rights.

That's not actually a counter factual claim.

The courts aren't pretending that Twitter accounts are the same as people. They are saying that public officials can't block people on Twitter, if using It for official business.

Again, twitter accounts are blocked, not people. Even you are pretending they are one and the same.

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...

I won't disagree with that; no "pure" economic system is perfect. I will say that free market economics are the most stable system known, where they are applicable. Free market is not applicable to free services, necessary services (as in utilities or, incidentally, health care), and monopolies.

This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

It doesn't create new law. All it does is establish Twitter as a government venue. The law has always been that no private organization can impede the people's right to participate in their government.

Most speeches are held in private venues. If these speeches are official government functions, no official can refuse entry based on political views. But also, the private venue cannot deny access based on political views. If the occasion is an official government function, the right of the people to participate cannot be denied by government or private entities unless for non-political reasons (such as public safety or legal violations).

That is already the law. The court found that the Twitter platform falls into the same category, so Trump cannot block users over political views. Neither can AOC, although she is not mentioned in the decision. Neither can Twitter. Once Twitter became the host of an official government interaction, the right of the people to participate in their government overrides the right to set up private policies for users.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

Court decisions don't work like that. Yes, it states that "President Donald Trump" cannot block user participation, because this lawsuit was specifically against "President Donald Trump." However, the decision will apply to any situation that meets the criteria laid down in the ruling. It does not have to specify what the requirements are for a public forum; it only needs to state that Twitter is in this case a public forum. It does this by using the logic that public forum rules apply.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

All court rulings have unstated implications. The backbone of the law is that it applies equally. What applies to one person or group must also apply to all persons or groups under similar circumstances.

Personally, I am withholding judgement for now. This carries a lot of implications that could have good or bad consequences. I want to consider them before I decide if I agree with the ruling or not. I am in this thread not to take sides, but to explain and consider the explanations of others.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people.

Agreed.

As to why it is not headline news, few appellate court rulings are (unless they appear to be anti-Trump, at least for the last few years). Chances are very good that this case will go on to the Supreme Court before becoming precedent; at that point, I'm sure everyone will be talking about it.

Some of the most far-reaching decisions in history were quietly decided with little fanfare... legaleeze is difficult for many people. Difficult does not make for good ratings, and news coverage is all about ratings, not news.

TheRedneck

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users. I think the you are seeing things in ruling that just aren't there. If the judgement meant something as significant at Twitter can't ban people then this would quite specifically be stated.

The court case itself has been widely reported yet I have yet to see any reporting that backs up the OP. If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people. The fairly obvious answer would be that it simply doesn't do what the OP claims.

A counter-factual claim is not a sufficient argument for the obvious reasons.

Anyone can see the official’s tweets even if they’ve been banned. I don’t even have a twitter account and I can see the tweets.

The ability read tweets isn't I believe basis for the judgement. I don't know counter factual claim you are referring to.

A counterfactual claim goes something like this: “if X was true, then Y would have happened”, for instance your claim that “If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people.”

The courts pretended that a twitter account is the same as a flesh and blood human being, even using the terms “user” and “person” interchangeably. Twitter accounts don’t have rights.

That's not actually a counter factual claim.

The courts aren't pretending that Twitter accounts are the same as people. They are saying that public officials can't block people on Twitter, if using It for official business.

Again, twitter accounts are blocked, not people. Even you are pretending they are one and the same.

Twitter accounts are used by people. Not really complicated to understand.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...

I won't disagree with that; no "pure" economic system is perfect. I will say that free market economics are the most stable system known, where they are applicable. Free market is not applicable to free services, necessary services (as in utilities or, incidentally, health care), and monopolies.

This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

It doesn't create new law. All it does is establish Twitter as a government venue. The law has always been that no private organization can impede the people's right to participate in their government.

Most speeches are held in private venues. If these speeches are official government functions, no official can refuse entry based on political views. But also, the private venue cannot deny access based on political views. If the occasion is an official government function, the right of the people to participate cannot be denied by government or private entities unless for non-political reasons (such as public safety or legal violations).

That is already the law. The court found that the Twitter platform falls into the same category, so Trump cannot block users over political views. Neither can AOC, although she is not mentioned in the decision. Neither can Twitter. Once Twitter became the host of an official government interaction, the right of the people to participate in their government overrides the right to set up private policies for users.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

Court decisions don't work like that. Yes, it states that "President Donald Trump" cannot block user participation, because this lawsuit was specifically against "President Donald Trump." However, the decision will apply to any situation that meets the criteria laid down in the ruling. It does not have to specify what the requirements are for a public forum; it only needs to state that Twitter is in this case a public forum. It does this by using the logic that public forum rules apply.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

All court rulings have unstated implications. The backbone of the law is that it applies equally. What applies to one person or group must also apply to all persons or groups under similar circumstances.

Personally, I am withholding judgement for now. This carries a lot of implications that could have good or bad consequences. I want to consider them before I decide if I agree with the ruling or not. I am in this thread not to take sides, but to explain and consider the explanations of others.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people.

Agreed.

As to why it is not headline news, few appellate court rulings are (unless they appear to be anti-Trump, at least for the last few years). Chances are very good that this case will go on to the Supreme Court before becoming precedent; at that point, I'm sure everyone will be talking about it.

Some of the most far-reaching decisions in history were quietly decided with little fanfare... legaleeze is difficult for many people. Difficult does not make for good ratings, and news coverage is all about ratings, not news.

TheRedneck

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users. I think the you are seeing things in ruling that just aren't there. If the judgement meant something as significant at Twitter can't ban people then this would quite specifically be stated.

The court case itself has been widely reported yet I have yet to see any reporting that backs up the OP. If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people. The fairly obvious answer would be that it simply doesn't do what the OP claims.

A counter-factual claim is not a sufficient argument for the obvious reasons.

Anyone can see the official’s tweets even if they’ve been banned. I don’t even have a twitter account and I can see the tweets.

The ability read tweets isn't I believe basis for the judgement. I don't know counter factual claim you are referring to.

A counterfactual claim goes something like this: “if X was true, then Y would have happened”, for instance your claim that “If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people.”

The courts pretended that a twitter account is the same as a flesh and blood human being, even using the terms “user” and “person” interchangeably. Twitter accounts don’t have rights.

That's not actually a counter factual claim.

The courts aren't pretending that Twitter accounts are the same as people. They are saying that public officials can't block people on Twitter, if using It for official business.

Again, twitter accounts are blocked, not people. Even you are pretending they are one and the same.

Twitter accounts are used by people. Not really complicated to understand.

Twitter accounts have no rights. Not too difficult to understand.

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...

I won't disagree with that; no "pure" economic system is perfect. I will say that free market economics are the most stable system known, where they are applicable. Free market is not applicable to free services, necessary services (as in utilities or, incidentally, health care), and monopolies.

This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

It doesn't create new law. All it does is establish Twitter as a government venue. The law has always been that no private organization can impede the people's right to participate in their government.

Most speeches are held in private venues. If these speeches are official government functions, no official can refuse entry based on political views. But also, the private venue cannot deny access based on political views. If the occasion is an official government function, the right of the people to participate cannot be denied by government or private entities unless for non-political reasons (such as public safety or legal violations).

That is already the law. The court found that the Twitter platform falls into the same category, so Trump cannot block users over political views. Neither can AOC, although she is not mentioned in the decision. Neither can Twitter. Once Twitter became the host of an official government interaction, the right of the people to participate in their government overrides the right to set up private policies for users.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

Court decisions don't work like that. Yes, it states that "President Donald Trump" cannot block user participation, because this lawsuit was specifically against "President Donald Trump." However, the decision will apply to any situation that meets the criteria laid down in the ruling. It does not have to specify what the requirements are for a public forum; it only needs to state that Twitter is in this case a public forum. It does this by using the logic that public forum rules apply.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

All court rulings have unstated implications. The backbone of the law is that it applies equally. What applies to one person or group must also apply to all persons or groups under similar circumstances.

Personally, I am withholding judgement for now. This carries a lot of implications that could have good or bad consequences. I want to consider them before I decide if I agree with the ruling or not. I am in this thread not to take sides, but to explain and consider the explanations of others.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people.

Agreed.

As to why it is not headline news, few appellate court rulings are (unless they appear to be anti-Trump, at least for the last few years). Chances are very good that this case will go on to the Supreme Court before becoming precedent; at that point, I'm sure everyone will be talking about it.

Some of the most far-reaching decisions in history were quietly decided with little fanfare... legaleeze is difficult for many people. Difficult does not make for good ratings, and news coverage is all about ratings, not news.

TheRedneck

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users. I think the you are seeing things in ruling that just aren't there. If the judgement meant something as significant at Twitter can't ban people then this would quite specifically be stated.

The court case itself has been widely reported yet I have yet to see any reporting that backs up the OP. If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people. The fairly obvious answer would be that it simply doesn't do what the OP claims.

A counter-factual claim is not a sufficient argument for the obvious reasons.

Anyone can see the official’s tweets even if they’ve been banned. I don’t even have a twitter account and I can see the tweets.

The ability read tweets isn't I believe basis for the judgement. I don't know counter factual claim you are referring to.

A counterfactual claim goes something like this: “if X was true, then Y would have happened”, for instance your claim that “If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people.”

The courts pretended that a twitter account is the same as a flesh and blood human being, even using the terms “user” and “person” interchangeably. Twitter accounts don’t have rights.

That's not actually a counter factual claim.

The courts aren't pretending that Twitter accounts are the same as people. They are saying that public officials can't block people on Twitter, if using It for official business.

Again, twitter accounts are blocked, not people. Even you are pretending they are one and the same.

Twitter accounts are used by people. Not really complicated to understand.

Twitter accounts have no rights. Not too difficult to understand.

Just as well no one is claiming they do.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...

I won't disagree with that; no "pure" economic system is perfect. I will say that free market economics are the most stable system known, where they are applicable. Free market is not applicable to free services, necessary services (as in utilities or, incidentally, health care), and monopolies.

This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

It doesn't create new law. All it does is establish Twitter as a government venue. The law has always been that no private organization can impede the people's right to participate in their government.

Most speeches are held in private venues. If these speeches are official government functions, no official can refuse entry based on political views. But also, the private venue cannot deny access based on political views. If the occasion is an official government function, the right of the people to participate cannot be denied by government or private entities unless for non-political reasons (such as public safety or legal violations).

That is already the law. The court found that the Twitter platform falls into the same category, so Trump cannot block users over political views. Neither can AOC, although she is not mentioned in the decision. Neither can Twitter. Once Twitter became the host of an official government interaction, the right of the people to participate in their government overrides the right to set up private policies for users.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

Court decisions don't work like that. Yes, it states that "President Donald Trump" cannot block user participation, because this lawsuit was specifically against "President Donald Trump." However, the decision will apply to any situation that meets the criteria laid down in the ruling. It does not have to specify what the requirements are for a public forum; it only needs to state that Twitter is in this case a public forum. It does this by using the logic that public forum rules apply.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

All court rulings have unstated implications. The backbone of the law is that it applies equally. What applies to one person or group must also apply to all persons or groups under similar circumstances.

Personally, I am withholding judgement for now. This carries a lot of implications that could have good or bad consequences. I want to consider them before I decide if I agree with the ruling or not. I am in this thread not to take sides, but to explain and consider the explanations of others.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people.

Agreed.

As to why it is not headline news, few appellate court rulings are (unless they appear to be anti-Trump, at least for the last few years). Chances are very good that this case will go on to the Supreme Court before becoming precedent; at that point, I'm sure everyone will be talking about it.

Some of the most far-reaching decisions in history were quietly decided with little fanfare... legaleeze is difficult for many people. Difficult does not make for good ratings, and news coverage is all about ratings, not news.

TheRedneck

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users. I think the you are seeing things in ruling that just aren't there. If the judgement meant something as significant at Twitter can't ban people then this would quite specifically be stated.

The court case itself has been widely reported yet I have yet to see any reporting that backs up the OP. If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people. The fairly obvious answer would be that it simply doesn't do what the OP claims.

A counter-factual claim is not a sufficient argument for the obvious reasons.

Anyone can see the official’s tweets even if they’ve been banned. I don’t even have a twitter account and I can see the tweets.

The ability read tweets isn't I believe basis for the judgement. I don't know counter factual claim you are referring to.

A counterfactual claim goes something like this: “if X was true, then Y would have happened”, for instance your claim that “If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people.”

The courts pretended that a twitter account is the same as a flesh and blood human being, even using the terms “user” and “person” interchangeably. Twitter accounts don’t have rights.

That's not actually a counter factual claim.

The courts aren't pretending that Twitter accounts are the same as people. They are saying that public officials can't block people on Twitter, if using It for official business.

Again, twitter accounts are blocked, not people. Even you are pretending they are one and the same.

Twitter accounts are used by people. Not really complicated to understand.

Twitter accounts have no rights. Not too difficult to understand.

Just as well no one is claiming they do.

The courts pretend they do.

“a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees”

No persons are excluded. Twitter accounts, on the other hand, are.

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes the free market has led to Twitter becoming so dominant, one of the many reasons why markets require regulation...

I won't disagree with that; no "pure" economic system is perfect. I will say that free market economics are the most stable system known, where they are applicable. Free market is not applicable to free services, necessary services (as in utilities or, incidentally, health care), and monopolies.

This is a court decision not legislation. It can't create new laws that the first amendment appliesto private organisations.

It doesn't create new law. All it does is establish Twitter as a government venue. The law has always been that no private organization can impede the people's right to participate in their government.

Most speeches are held in private venues. If these speeches are official government functions, no official can refuse entry based on political views. But also, the private venue cannot deny access based on political views. If the occasion is an official government function, the right of the people to participate cannot be denied by government or private entities unless for non-political reasons (such as public safety or legal violations).

That is already the law. The court found that the Twitter platform falls into the same category, so Trump cannot block users over political views. Neither can AOC, although she is not mentioned in the decision. Neither can Twitter. Once Twitter became the host of an official government interaction, the right of the people to participate in their government overrides the right to set up private policies for users.

The ruling applies to the actions of public officials (it states this). If someone contested that as Twitter is not a completely open forum then I can see it being possible a court finds that government can't use Twitter for official business. Again that is applying the 1st to government, not individual citizens o companies.

Court decisions don't work like that. Yes, it states that "President Donald Trump" cannot block user participation, because this lawsuit was specifically against "President Donald Trump." However, the decision will apply to any situation that meets the criteria laid down in the ruling. It does not have to specify what the requirements are for a public forum; it only needs to state that Twitter is in this case a public forum. It does this by using the logic that public forum rules apply.

I think the rulling is a poor one, but that doesn't mean that it says things it doesn't.

All court rulings have unstated implications. The backbone of the law is that it applies equally. What applies to one person or group must also apply to all persons or groups under similar circumstances.

Personally, I am withholding judgement for now. This carries a lot of implications that could have good or bad consequences. I want to consider them before I decide if I agree with the ruling or not. I am in this thread not to take sides, but to explain and consider the explanations of others.

As pointed out if the OP was correct the implications of that would be far greater than individual public officials glossing the right to block people.

Agreed.

As to why it is not headline news, few appellate court rulings are (unless they appear to be anti-Trump, at least for the last few years). Chances are very good that this case will go on to the Supreme Court before becoming precedent; at that point, I'm sure everyone will be talking about it.

Some of the most far-reaching decisions in history were quietly decided with little fanfare... legaleeze is difficult for many people. Difficult does not make for good ratings, and news coverage is all about ratings, not news.

TheRedneck

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users. I think the you are seeing things in ruling that just aren't there. If the judgement meant something as significant at Twitter can't ban people then this would quite specifically be stated.

The court case itself has been widely reported yet I have yet to see any reporting that backs up the OP. If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people. The fairly obvious answer would be that it simply doesn't do what the OP claims.

A counter-factual claim is not a sufficient argument for the obvious reasons.

Anyone can see the official’s tweets even if they’ve been banned. I don’t even have a twitter account and I can see the tweets.

The ability read tweets isn't I believe basis for the judgement. I don't know counter factual claim you are referring to.

A counterfactual claim goes something like this: “if X was true, then Y would have happened”, for instance your claim that “If the OP was correct that would he way more significant and reportable than Trump o or AOC not being able to block people.”

The courts pretended that a twitter account is the same as a flesh and blood human being, even using the terms “user” and “person” interchangeably. Twitter accounts don’t have rights.

That's not actually a counter factual claim.

The courts aren't pretending that Twitter accounts are the same as people. They are saying that public officials can't block people on Twitter, if using It for official business.

Again, twitter accounts are blocked, not people. Even you are pretending they are one and the same.

Twitter accounts are used by people. Not really complicated to understand.

Twitter accounts have no rights. Not too difficult to understand.

Just as well no one is claiming they do.

The courts pretend they do.

“a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise‐open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees”

No persons are excluded. Twitter accounts, on the other hand, are.

People use Twitter accounts. First amendment does not specify what medium is being used.

a reply to: ScepticScot

The judgement quite specifically states it refers to public officials blocking users.

Again, it specifically states President Trump cannot block users. It doesn't even mention AOC. That's because the only thing they were considering was the case before them, which named President Trump as the official blocking users. The court will not directly address anything beyond the specific case before them.

What matters is the reasoning behind their decision. That is the part that causes the ruling to apply to AOC. It is also what causes it to apply to Twitter. No court decision can apply to any single person without applying to everyone who fits the ruling. The reasoning was that Twitter is operating a public, government venue; ergo, the restrictions for operating a public government venue apply to Twitter.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ScepticScot

People use Twitter accounts. First amendment does not specify what medium is being used.

it doesn't need to; the courts do that.

TheRedneck