Then its not an open public forum

"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."

no where in there does it say it has to be public land to count as a public forum.

a private college campus comes to mind

Bad example lol

How is a Twitter Account a place with a 'long tradition of freedom of expression'?

obviously private land is not a open public forum

I can ban anyone from my house

@Ivanfr tell me where, in that definition of an open public forum, it says it has to be public property?

in the word "public"

which is the opposite of "privaet"

"A public forum is a place that has, by tradition or practice, been held out for general **use** by the public **for speech-related purposes.**"

it doesn't have to be public land.

"To determine which of the standards of student expression applies in a given case, many courts first conduct a "public forum analysis." The public forum analysis determines whether individuals may have access to places for communicative purposes."

if it was, then why would an analysis be necessary?

Tim gave an example earlier of a case where an established private park was not allowed to kick people who were expressing their first amendment right off. I forget the name of the park, but examples exist.

No private land is this " been held out for general use by the public for speech-related purposes."

by definition

college campus

or at least, used to be a good example

before the left took over

a local coffee shop

a local coffee shop can ban whoever they want

So Grenade

they cant say "is because he is black, or because he is from X religion"

but they can say "we ban him because we want"

yes. they can. and the definition of a public forum is only what the government can and cannot dictate.

sorry, they can ban whoever they want is what i was replying to

How does a twitter account apply, especially when the twitter account has belonged to the individual before election, and the right to block another person is a right given to any individual on the platform?

and furthermore, when the platform itself reserves censorious privilege.

I dont think it applies to the internet

@RyeNorth you have dodged answering my previous question. Since i already said i count the president as always being the president while he is in office. His, as basically the nature of the job demands, cannot be off duty.

So when he has sex with his beautiful wife, its the whole country thats doing it

xDD

kinky isn;t it

but lets be real, she hasn't let him tap that in a while

It's not that different from any other CEO position, really.

I dunno. I could see the appeal of copulation in the oval office

I think the Internet doesnt obey by those rules

those rules are for IRL

like in Radio and TV, nobody has the right to appear in those platforms

It's like asking, at what point am I NOT a delivery guy?

Is every action I take in respect to the company I represent?