>>1520269 (LB)
You are absolutely correct. It would be easy to draft a provision to award attorney fees for the winning party. That gives lawfags an incentive to take the case even though their clients can't pay up front.
>>1520286 (LB)
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. You have no right to free speech on twitter. Constitution only applies to State Action. Twitter is not govt, so it can do whatever it wants. If twitter was an extension of the government, then you would have a right to free speech.
If you can prove twitter is in bed with the govt, then I (as a lawfag) think you have a great argument that your first amendment rights are violated. See the Brentwood SCOTUS case on close-nexus analysis.
>Streets, parks, and sidewalks are considered open to public discourse by tradition and are designated as traditional public forums. The government creates a designated public forum when it intentionally opens a nontraditional forum for public discourse. Limited public forums, such as municipal meeting rooms, are nonpublic forums that have been specifically designated by the government as open to certain groups or topics. Traditional public forums cannot be changed to nonpublic forums by governments.
Anon, see all the use of the word "government " in there? That makes my point. First amendment only applies when there is State Action. Twitter is a private company.
I see your point. I don't think there is a good way to get twitter on a 1st amendment violation, nor do I think there should be. If I owned twitter and wanted to suppress liberal garbage, why shouldn't I be able to do that? It's my company, and I can do what I want.
Agreed with your point on how to enforce it and make it stick.
My whole point is this district court decision does nothing for Qfags. Truly, it's a waste of bread, and I am trying to help anons understand how the constitution works.
Correct. That's why Civil Rights statues have an attorney fees provision. It encourages attorneys to take cases they otherwise would not take.
Any person associated with govt, whether federal or state (14th amendment).
Yes, you are correct. It would apply equally to any govt figure who is using the account in the same manner POTUS uses his.
Constitutional law is very important and should be discussed. But Anons are failing to understand that this DC decision is not good precedent for us in any way in regards to us being banned by Twatter.
It is good news for us if we get blocked by Pelosi or the like on Twatter. This decision would equally apply to that situation. However, again, this is a DC decision, which is not binding on any other court. If it goes to the COA and is upheld, then it becomes precedent for that Appellate Circuit.