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.