>>1518922

>>1518908

>>1518920

>>1518965

As a Federal district court ruling, this cannot be cited as precedent. But note that the judge said that Twitter "is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment." Therefore, I would think the same logic applies to Twitter, Facebook, Google, and other corporations blocking conservative speech or other speech they don't agree with or consider hate speech or porn. This should be looked at as a win for Free Speech!

I suspect there may still be limited exceptions for inciting violence or violating court injunctions against contacting individuals or corruption/treason/terror-related considerations.

Something else to consider. Social media often requires American users to abide by the same restrictions that citizens of certain countries must follow (e.g., Nazi references, Chinese political rules, etc.). Since the USA is currently negotiating a bunch of trade and tariff agreements, I ask POTUS to insert clauses that Facebook, Twitter, Google, and other internet companies are required to abide by American free speech rules (both legislation and case law) and that the other countries cannot infringe on Americans' free speech rights and must also increase the corresponding rights of their citizens to attain the same freedoms.

>>1519963

>>1519944

Not a lawfag, but I think IBOR should be pursued until legislation is passed/signed and/or until the Supreme Court rules on the issue. One Appeals Court can rule one way on it while another Appeals Court in a different circuit can rule otherwise. Only legislation or an SC ruling is the final word. You'd think the First Amendment should be good enough, but there's always somebody trying to evade it (ditto the Second Amendment).