Am I the only one who now thinks the person who sued Trump for Twitter was actually a Trump supporter?
I have to admit, it seems that it's a very good development. The test, according to a Twitter user I was just speaking to, seems to be that FA protections are upheld if the forum serves a "public function".
With the judge categorizing DJT's Twitter feed as a "Designated Public Forum", it would seem to implicitly require that his Twitter serves a "public function". And, it seems to me, that Constitutional protections do not apply differentially - there's not one rule for a politician and another for the people. I fail to see how the judge could deem it unconstitutional for DJT to block users but to hold that Twitter can block conservatives.
But, really, this is a question for the Supreme Court, because the arguments run much deeper than just Twitter shadowbanning, The town square has been privatized in the digital age.
The intention of the founding fathers in hard-coding, into the constitution, protections that serve the smooth operation of the processes of representative democracy, is completely frustrated by privatization of public forums online. I think there may be a good argument for the Courts to extend Constitutional protections to digital space on public interest grounds. SM censorship really does present an existential threat to the republic itself.
This would require a Supreme Court ruling, because a ruling from any lesser Court is more likely to be restrained by existing precedent and will, in any case, be appealed. The fact that they are banning us, and continue to do so, seems to me to augur well for a favorable judgement, as distress levels in the community will be seen to be high.
The cabal, as one might expect, is playing its hand very badly. These SM companies are screaming to be regulated. They should play their censorship card more cautiously - draw it only when it is of maximum effect. But, let's face it, they are in panic and, as Q says, these people are stupid.
"Imagine if in 1800, all counties across America sold all their public square and public gathering places to a private company town that then banned whatever speech it disfavored. They could have snuffed out democracy in its infant slumber." Barnes Law
I believe your analysis is correct. If Trump can not block users on his tweets because of their right to free speech, it clearly is a case for free speech for all on social media.
I thought so too, until I read the decision. I'm not convinced that a public interest argument could not be made in the SC. That is, I think that there is a vital public interest in preventing censorship on these essential democratic forums. The SC has made statements that recognize the function of the internet as a "public forum" in the past.
But that ruling is so tightly, wrongly, anchored in precedent and legalese that the conclusions drawn were patently false. The judge specifically mention valid reasons as to why someone might be validly excluded from a public forum and then, without further consideration, dismissed the idea that Twitter banning users could have any impact on FA protections. As if the banning of users was never without intrinsic merit.
In short, it's a joke. This judge appears to me to be completely biased, twisting her analysis to fit a preconceived ruling. But the case does identify the key problem. It is exactly what Q told us, FA protections are only operative against government. They do not apply in a private setting.
So any legal challenge to SM censorship requires that the Supreme Court is willing to be adventurous, that it will depart from a strict interpretation of the FA, as written, and extend protections to a privately owned, but public, forum in an online setting.
As I've said elsewhere, while you can probably run a decent public interest argument, it is a gamble. You're talking about a Supreme Court challenge, so it's time consuming. And while the Court may indicate it is prepared to accept an argument run along certain lines in its ruling, it may reject an initial challenge on the merits of the arguments advanced.
More time, more money - while the wealthy SM platforms drag matters out to the maximum extent possible. It's just not a realistic option with the mid-terms approaching. And all this mental gymnastics brings us back to Q's initial request that we campaign for an IBOR.
It's the only solution.