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?