legal Definition of open forum
: a government property that is opened to the public for expressive activities of any kind — compare limited public forum

I found this definition in a website that is like a dictionary for lawyers

The argument, as I've seen it presented has been ```1. Any action taken by the president is an action of the government
2. Donald Trump's personal twitter account is to be considered an open public forum
3. Twitter, as a whole, as a privately owned company, may remain a private forum```

Have I misrepresented anything?

the problem is we need the exact legal definition

there is probably some supporting premises missing from some of those but yes

also other questions like do you own your twitter account

all of the legal definitions im seeing say that the forum must belong to the government

@Ivanfr which is why i just asked the question, do you own your twitter account

So, let's address #1.

no, twitter does

And I'm switching to metaphor for my case

I have no right to my twitter account, I just hope twitter lets me use it

I havent paid for ity

it*

If Elon Musk were to kick someone from his house

and im pretty sure when I accepted the ToS it says that I dont own shit and twitter are the supreme god of their virtual land

true. Yet apparently you have a right to the data generated by using it.

Is this the action of Elon Musk, or is it an official action of a company he owns?

or at least that is what a bunch of congress people who don't know how facebook works seems to think.

Let's just call the government a legal person and be done with it 😛

@RyeNorth its entirely possible

Owns is the wrong term.

He doesn't own it, he represents it. The shareholders own it.

Of which, he may be considered to be one,

Tesla or SpaceX cant suffer legal consequences for what Elon Musk says in his private life

well, it can depending on what he does

give me an example

Alright, let's reframe this question, then.

Does Elon Musk require the power of being the CEO of SpaceX to kick someone out of his living room?

Or, would this be a privilege any property owner would have?

I wonder if Trump deleted Obama's tweets from the @POTUS account

and unfollowed HIllary Clinton

😄

I think Twitter actually designated @POTUS as a special account

There's convoluted work related hypotheticals, but, in general, it's the right of being a property holder

the main reason Trump does not use it.

not exactly the prefect example. his house would also need to be spacex property

Why would it also need to be spacex property?

It's his own living room.

He's had the living room before he was CEO of spaceX

Think of university presidents living in a house provided by the university

Think of Trump Tower.

Rule #1 dont live in a place that u dont own

Not everything that The President of the United States owns is government property

@Ivanfr if you have to pay taxes on it constantly, you don't own it

well u own it as much as u can

Not everything that Elon Musk owns is SpaceX property.

The metaphor translates quite effectively.

i mean, you statement is wrong. it certainly would be better to live in land that the government has no right to and therefore can't tax you

I havent seen such land

I mean u can go to the jungle with a gun and claim land

I mean, I own a company, myself. My car is not company property.

well given that i previously said i treat CEOs as representatives of the company at all times so that anything they say or do related to the company, even if its while they are "off duty", is as good as an official statement for the company, this is not exactly perfect.

Or at least such land with postal service

That doesn't answer the question.

technically no

the best kind of no.

but this is not the same as trump banning people

How so?

He's not banning people, by the way.

Not like Twitter is.

because that would be like kicking out a space-x employee out of his house, then hold a space x meeting there talking about his job.

his being the person kicked out

You're reframing the question.

Just because a President uses a service, that doesnt make the service propierty of the govt

ur taxes didnt fund twitter

Part of my point.

and yes the president has the right to use private services

Which leads to #2 and #3

It's annoying anyway since blocking doesn't hinder public discussion, just easy the reference

How can Twitter be a private service, with a constitutionally protected public service within it?

so, the president can use his personal twitter to talk about his positions on things, which, since he is the president, is also the POTUS position, but depending on which one he uses, he can block people out of the conversation?

Absolutely!

he can block anyone in any account

unless there is now a law about @POTUS

He's not using @potus

He's using @realdonaldtrump

well but assume he was

oh, good. So lets block all political opposition, stop using @potus, and stop providing any other forms of press release

it wouldnt matter in my opinion

He hasn't done that.

but he can

@Grenade123 sure, what is the problem with that?

well, could

Then it becomes the official form of communication, which makes it a problem

FOIA would wreck him if he tried.

I don't believe the president is REQUIRED to give press releases, anyway.

It is not the official form of communication

he is still appearing on TV and all that

perhaps. or maybe they would jsut declare his private twitter the new offical potus account and we are back to here

official in what sense @Grenade123

in the sense that twitter itself recognises it as verified?

idk, what makes @potus official?

nothing as far as I know

That's what you're trying to argue.

apart from Twitters word

@RyeNorth actually, you are the one that drew a distinction between @potus and trumps account. i did not.

they are both voices of the president

well @POTUS does belong to the govt

it is passed from one president to another