It's protected.

being an asshole and determining if their screeching is valid is subjective.

hence why it never looks good, regardless of how justified it might be

I wonder if Twitter artificially bumping up negative replies on Trumps Twitter and hiding positive ones also violates 1A rights if his Twitter is a public space.

i think there is a difference between twitter blocking their users from talking and trump doing it.

its their platform, their rules.

But if his twitter is considered a public forum it might be different.

well thats the question

https://i.redd.it/xwm7ome3hnz01.png

because him not being allowed to block people is a restriction on his conduct while on the job of president

According to that it is a public forum.

then twitter has lost control of their platform

what are the "public form" doctrines

I agree. It doesn't look good. Though it's a private account, one that he controls. If that account is going to be considered a public platform, would his be the only one being affected by it?

nope

can't

thinkabout everyone who was banned from twitter

this sets a huge prescendence

if it's a public forum, how can you be banned strictly due to speech

save for the whole digital equivilent of yelling fire

```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)"