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