There's no way Trump's account can be considered an open public forum

Twitter is never an official way of communication from the govt to you

it is a lil treat

if it is rendered impenetrable by a closed forum

if u wanna use it u use it if not u dont have to

If you've got a patch of grass, right?

you don't have to go to a public forum either

but you have the right to do so

Twitter is not a public forum

is a private company

is a communication service

Twitter is a dictatorship

Government person A is speaking on that grass

we already went over this. a public forum, by the legal definition they are using, is not restricted to public land.

the company does whatever they want, period.

can u link me to that definition

because I dont think it talks about virtual worlds

But we've got a digital equivalent.

it talks about land

It doesn't specify land, I don't believe.

well not private one anyway

and twitter is private virtual "land"

Is there any history of moderation for public land? (And to what extent?)

The point is, there's no historical basis for his twitter account to be a public forum.

i think there might be. depends on how far back you want to consider history, tbh.

If twitter is a public forum then my living room is too

actually

but there is no denying social media is a common avenue for political discourse

I misinterpreted what it meant by 'traditional'.

"by tradition or practice"

What they're saying is that that particular type of spot has been used

http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=13012

So, street corners, check.

Public parks, check.

If someone generally allows it in their land, they can't suddenly change their mind while it's an active ground.

look, no company can block u from being in a park, but twitter can block u from being in twitter

thats the difference right there

But how does that translate to digital?

If the govt had a official twitter-like platform then it would be different

You have to look at it in a generic sense, or in specific history.

In practice, Twitter has been censorious.

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3583&context=wmlr

page 13 on

It's not a good sign when the heading says *and its demise*

I've been linked a thesis, then? :/

A "traditional", or "open, public forum" is a place with a long tradition of freedom of expression, such as a public park or a street corner. The government can normally impose only content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions on speech in a public forum. Restrictions on speech in a public forum that are based on content will be struck down, unless the government can show the restriction is necessary to further a compelling governmental interest.

that is a description

not the cause of it being a open public forum

This argument is in semantics, anyway.

from what this is saying, the idea of a public forum is that the government cannot tell people where they can assemble. their example is a town forbidding a meeting hall owner from renting out to communists to host a public meeting.

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

so I guess it is official in some sense

or, well, one is the voice of the president, the other is of his poor PR team

someone said my name?

Have you considered that the tone Trump takes in his twitter, it's more of a direct line to the people who voted for him?

His Twitter is for the sake of his supporters, at the expense of his detractors.

If it's a public forum, it's going to be a shitshow

I'm willing to bet it gets beat down tho

if it doesn't it's gonna be really fucking weird

I'm willing to bet Twitter will BEG for it to get beat down.

yes

why? twitter is not affected by the statement

Because if not, everyone in the US will need to purge all public figure's bans

They inherently are.

they could still ban trumps account if it violated ToS

er

I worded that for SHIT

what are the official ways the President talks to the public?

Every public figure in the US will need to immediately unban everyone from the US that they blocked

If they're the stewards of an open public forum, they are required to observe the first amendment as well.

@OliveBlanc every public figure? or every government official?

But then there's going to be a lead-in from the people who are using VPN's

yes

well, govt'

sorry, again

Im not from America so im not familiar with this, in my country the govt owns 2 of the TV channels and they use them to talk to the ppl

It might eventually trickle down to that

But I don't see it in the neigh future

If we go by your logic, Grenade

The Governor is never NOT representing the state.

honestly, the governor sorta is never not representing the state

Judges are never NOT making statements edging towards policy.

they're representing the state when they put a klan uniform, when they take a dump and when they call little kids fags

The President is not unique in his representation of the government.

yup

He's just up there because he's honestly just a badass

If we're going to say that only Donald Trump's twitter account applies

that's an activist decision.

It's either all going to hold up to appeal, or none of it

My intent here was to argue the point independent of the ruling

@RyeNorth judges actually have a distinct time when they are not working. However, they are always representing themselves, which means they are always representing what position they might take on a topic, so yes.

There must be a official way of communicating with the public, it cant be twitter and late night shows

there is

emails and phone calls

and they are all logged and I think subjected to FOIA requests

If they expand twitter to that

fuck

That'll be INSANE

holy shit you have no idea

lol

they officially talk to the public through leaked emails on wiki leaks

Will his private messages be FOIA'd?

Yeah, fuck, didn't consider that

I'm wondering what'll happen to all of the banned americans

the US slidin' into his DMs

if it's a public forum, how can you be banned from it?

@OliveBlanc depends on how you define it. it seems public forum says they government can't block you from it

@Grenade123 xDDD

Especially if you're not a felon... supposing it'd be some special case like voting rights or 2a rights

also, its just trumps twitter account

Question, when Trump appears on Jimmy Kimmel is he representing the govt?

(((officially)))

yes

I would say so

while he is the president? yes

then twitter is the same as taht

obv. idgaf once he's out of office

"Government can designate public property as a forum for all speakers or for a certain class of speakers (such as students or newspapers on postal property). At the same time, government can designate a lot of private property, such as shopping malls, but also communications infrastructure, such as cable systems and phone systems."

Well, is jimmy kimmel a public forum?

I don't think so.

but he can choose what TV show to go to and which ones not

for example he didnt go to Conan

cus Conan is a leftie

even tho I like his comedy

they can just declare a private area is now a public forum?

I mean thats ur argument isnt it?

unless ur arguments is that the President's life is now public propierty or something like that

not the rest of twitter users

Sure. But would it hold up if not everyone can access it?

the rest of twitter isn't a public forum

Exactly!

so is that about public forums but about the behaviour of the president while he is in office

You see my point!

just his twitter, specifically his tweets

is not*

kk

In order for declaring the public space

that is the official ruling

you would have to declare a public path TO that public space.

well perfect, now twitter can unban conservatives

That's what I've been getting at this whole time.

then the leftists will scream

Yuuuuup

and either the ruling will be reversed, or twitter will die

We're on the same page, now.

still not seeing the downside of this ruling regardless

Does a President have a right to a personal public life while in office?

I'm not saying there IS a downside

I'm saying it's a case of activist leftists being shortsighted as they are want to be.

i mean, it was never in question who wanted this

Oh, right.