```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.

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.1

There are three types of public forums:

I. 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.

II. A "limited public forum" or "designated public forum" is a place with a more limited history of expressive activity, usually only for certain groups or topics. Examples of a limited public forum would include a university meeting hall or a city-owned theater. The government can limit access to certain types of speakers in a limited public forum, or limit the use of such facilities for certain subjects. Despite these more proscriptive guidelines, however, a governmental institution may still not restrict expression at a limited forum unless that restriction serves a "compelling interest."

III. A "closed public forum" is a place that, traditionally, has not been open to public expression, such as a jail or a military base. Governmental restrictions on access to a nonpublic forum will be upheld as long as they are reasonable and not based on a desire to suppress a particular viewpoint. This standard is far more deferential to government officials.```

keep in mind, the first amendment is government censorship of free speech

no, its not

Tim even did a video on it

he did a video on free speech

and he pointed out exactly what you just said was not right

pretty sure he didn't, but lets see, its this one right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHoBsMx-U0w

it might be that one

hes done a ton of them on free speech haha

I think he even reference the XKCD comic

wait, let me make sure that phrasing was clear. 1A is protection from government censorship of free speech. but not guaranteed free speech.

but lets look at the actual amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

the government cannot abridge free speech.

Tim pool: "First Amendment is protection of free speech from the government" <this

twitter is not the government. Trump, however IS the government.

technically its just congress cant make any laws about it... doesnt mean they wont do without making a technical law

(by they I mean the gov in general)

also Executive orders bypass congress dont they?

so that could be another route

I would need to read up on what limits an executive order may have.

it terms of the constitution, it may just count as overriding any vote to make a law. but if that law violates the constitution on what congress can pass, then it still fails

"In the United States, an executive order is a directive issued by the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law.[1] The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation)"

"Executive orders, while considered to have the force of law, can't be used to overturn laws – but the orders themselves can be overturned by Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared some executive orders unconstitutional."

so congress would probably overrule it... but it sounds like it could be done

it could be, but then it can be overruled before being officially enacted. or it could be repealed.

unless.. congress specifically makes a law somehow enforcing free speech... so it cannot be abridged... then no EO can overrule it

thats not really how it works

congress could, technically, make any damn law they want. The constitution is, after all, just a piece of paper. Laws get passed all the time which are then challenged for review and labeled unconstitutional. Thats really how it works. So any congress or EO could abridge free speech. But that doesn't mean it will be upheld upon review

and if its found unconstitutional, it is thrown out immediately

in order to get around that, you'd basically have to fill the presidency, the supreme court, and most of congress with all people who support this... and then not piss them off ever.

at which point, the country is probably lost anyway

Im not even sure how you would make a law protecting free speech

back to the subject at hand If you look back to the topic at hand, the declared trumps twitter account, not twitter as a whole, a public form

On an unrelated note the Battlefield V reveal will be soon and I was all hyped till I found it would be hosted by Trevor Noah.

Trevor isn't that bad as a comic on his own. there are better by far, but some of his off the cuff stuff can be decently funny when he is not talking politics

yeah twitter seems to go from private company that can do what it likes, to public forum depending on many things... the day of the week.. the cycle of the moon, what side of the bed trump falls out of

"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."
"we hold that **portions** of @realdonaldtrump count as a public form"

basically, he cannot deny people the ability to contact him on twitter, is how i am reading this

"the interactive spaces where twitter users may directly engage with content of the presidents tweets"

which this part i think backs up https://i.redd.it/xwm7ome3hnz01.png

yet they ban people all the time for no good reason

so

well, its not twitter that can't block people, its the owner of the account.

now, it would be interesting to see what would happen if twitter banned trumps account