Anons,
This decision does not give us IBOR. It's a District Court Decision for 1. Second, the Constitution (1st A) only applies to State Action. Twitter can block and suppress anyone. To get the 1st A to apply to twitter, you have to prove a close nexus argument i.e. Brentwood SCOTUS case.
The designated public forum only applies to when Trump tweets. Twitter as a whole was not found to be a designated public forum. You're over extending the judge's decision. I absolutely agree about the need for legislation for IBOR to be effective.
Theoretically, IBOR would give us a private cause of action against any person who maintains an internet forum. We would self regulate because when IBOR is violated, you sue in court and you rely on a judge to enforce your right to free speech. No matter what, you are asking govt to get involved and do something to help you. Reliance on government is best avoided. Someone should just create a new social media space that doesn't suppress viewpoints. Just like the chans.
POTUS = govt. POTUS = State Action. State Action is key to invoking 1st A rights. If no govt action, then no 1st A rights. You (assuming you have a private twatter) can block anyone you want because the constitution doesn't prohibit you from suppressing speech. You are arguing about Constitutional Law, which admittedly is not easy, without basic fundamental understanding. I'm sorry, but this decision has ZERO to do with twitter's ability to ban people because of what they say.