For one thing, does this mean that political viewpoint is a protected class?

Also, if Donald Trump's twitter is a public forum

This would mean that Twitter would have a constitutional duty to unban US citizens who have been banned from the platform, right?

Because Twitter banning users who *might* use the open public forum would be against the first amendment. Especially if they were banned for political speech. (Hate speech is protected speech, as per the supreme court.)

Would Milo be required to get unbanned? 😄

Or prevent people from blocking if they are in positions of government.

People can troll govt officials in that case

This seems like a classic case of leftist authoritarian activists making demands in the moment without thinking of the consequences of what they're doing.

"no government official -- including the President -- is above the law." - Official opinion.

So, yeah.

Unban all the right wingers who were banned

open season.

Also, no doubt Twitter would be unable to censor US citizens in addressing the president or other government officials, as they have in the past.

Ugh. I'm actually reading the judgement.

The first few pages seem to be them defining everything about what Twitter actually is. I hate legalese.

```“A user’s Twitter
webpage may also include a short biographical description; a
profile picture, such as a headshot; a ‘header’ image, which
appears as a banner at the top of the webpage; the user’s location;
a button labeled ‘Message,’ which allows two users to correspond
privately; and a small sample of photographs and videos posted to
the user’s timeline, which link to a full gallery.”``` - Page 4, This fucking judgement

Yup. That's twitter, alright. -_-

```Twitter user can also ‘mention’ another user by including the other
user’s Twitter handle in a tweet.``` This judicial opinion is riveting.

Page 6.

```Because a retweet or a reply to a tweet is itself a tweet,
each retweet and reply, recursively, may be retweeted, replied to,
or liked. “A Twitter user can also reply to other replies. A
user whose tweet generates replies will see the replies below his
or her original tweet, with any replies-to-replies nested below
the replies to which they respond...```People used to tell me I should go into law. I'm really glad I disappointed them right now...

Is that to make it clear they are specifying twitter the company? Couldn't they just mention the parent company (if there is one).

Also.. this only applies to us citizens using twitter?

@RyeNorth we discussed this earlier. If you look at all the wording around the ruling, this is limited to only trump, and does not actually dictate was twitter can and cannot do. If you look at the first amendment, it says the government cannot restrict free speech. The wording around a public forum says what the government can and cannot due related to free speech. The judgement also says trumps twitter around, specifically his tweets, are public forums, not all of twitter. So basically, because trump is literally the government right now, he cannot block people, because his tweets are public forums, and blocking people from them would be violating A1.

however, twitter can ban whoever they like, because they are not the government

Does that also mean that Twitter can censor direct responses to the President?

Or weight them as Twitter sees fit?

in theory, yes.

More like the reasoning that led to that judgement. How long before it can be used against anyone ekse?

however, i think this ruling means that the government cannot take down twitter for any reason, even that new sex trafficking law

what do you mean

It's the rule of invention

any time you create a new weapon

that weapon can be used against you.

A precedent of sorts. The ruling may only apply to trump for now. But the reasoning could be used in the future against other govt officials in the us

idk how this is exactly much of a weapon

"hey, you can't block people. which means you'll see a lot more annoying people responding to you"

the narrative being pushed is that this is promoting the first amendment.

I remember the articles being run with interviews early on though

really, there is no reason a government official should be blocking someone. its just bad optics all around, regardless of how justified it might be

They were talking about how the president being able to block was stifiling journos who were trying to make a name for themselves in Trump's twitter replies.

yes, and he can ignore them and call them fake news like he does at a news conference