If Trump's Twitter is a public forum now, does that mean that Twitter's banning of people for their speech is violating their first amendment rights because being banned means they can no longer access the Twitter feed from the public forum of Trump?

Updated on : December 8, 2021 by Dean Slater



If Trump's Twitter is a public forum now, does that mean that Twitter's banning of people for their speech is violating their first amendment rights because being banned means they can no longer access the Twitter feed from the public forum of Trump?

A2A

This question reflects two misunderstandings regarding Trump's Twitter account decision.

First, as I explained in Dana H. Shultz's answer to Do you agree with the court's decision that Trump cannot block users on Twitter? It is not the entirety of Trump's Twitter account that is a public forum; is the interactive space for replies and retweets is a designated public forum.

Second, the First Amendment prohibits discrimination based on views by the government. It does not prohibit such discrimination by private sector companies.

So to answer this question directly: No, Trump's Twitter decision

Keep reading

A2A

This question reflects two misunderstandings regarding Trump's Twitter account decision.

First, as I explained in Dana H. Shultz's answer to Do you agree with the court's decision that Trump cannot block users on Twitter? It is not the entirety of Trump's Twitter account that is a public forum; is the interactive space for replies and retweets is a designated public forum.

Second, the First Amendment prohibits discrimination based on views by the government. It does not prohibit such discrimination by private sector companies.

So to answer this question directly: No, Trump's decision on Twitter does not prevent Twitter from banning users. In fact, the Twitter Terms of Service 1 state that Twitter “may suspend or terminate your account or stop providing all or part of the Services to you at any time for any or no reason”. So, as a practical matter, Twitter can ban any user when it sees fit.

Footnotes

1 Twitter Terms of Service

I'd like everyone to see 10 different Trump videos and 10 different Trump tweets. Please take note of the contradictions. That's another word for LIES. Don't get amnesia. Now, Trump is the one who says Twitter bans free speech. IT IS NOT TRUE !

His tweets were tagged because they were false statements but they were not censored they are still visible, but Trump instantly became a Drama Queen because he knows that there are millions of people who believe him just because he is president and that makes him a god to them. So it gives millions of people the impression

Keep reading

I'd like everyone to see 10 different Trump videos and 10 different Trump tweets. Please take note of the contradictions. That's another word for LIES. Don't get amnesia. Now, Trump is the one who says Twitter bans free speech. IT IS NOT TRUE !

His tweets were tagged because they were false statements but they were not censored they are still visible, but Trump instantly became a Drama Queen because he knows that there are millions of people who believe him just because he is president and that makes him a god to them. So it gives millions of people the impression that their freedom of expression is prohibited on Twitter.

People who think Trump's word is the end should receive an extensive education. Or a psychiatrist ...

Congress will not enact any law regarding the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of it; o restrict freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble and request the Government to redress their grievances.

Twitter is not Congress. Trump's decision to use Twitter and an official government outlet does not mean that Twitter is now responsible for the actions of the United States government. Unless the government takes over ownership and operations of Twitter, you are free to do whatever you want, including banning accounts that violate.

Keep reading

Congress will not enact any law regarding the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of it; o restrict freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble and request the Government to redress their grievances.

Twitter is not Congress. Trump's decision to use Twitter and an official government outlet does not mean that Twitter is now responsible for the actions of the United States government. Unless the government takes over ownership and operations of Twitter, it's free to do whatever it wants, including banning accounts that violate its terms of service.

Imagine if they did not have the right to moderate who could use their services ... imagine if they were not allowed to remove posts containing eg snuff and pedophile content.

Thanks for the A2A.

No, it is not. Being "a public forum" does not impose any special First Amendment burden on Twitter. They can still enforce their own rules as a private organization, although there could be a problem if they are found to be banning people because they followed Trump. The ideas on which the decision was based were established when “a public forum” meant a physical public space where someone could speak. You might think that banning people on Twitter corresponds to not allowing people to enter a room because it has reached the maximum legal capacity, or removing them due to interruptions.

Keep reading

Thanks for the A2A.

No, it is not. Being "a public forum" does not impose any special First Amendment burden on Twitter. They can still enforce their own rules as a private organization, although there could be a problem if they are found to be banning people because they followed Trump. The ideas on which the decision was based were established when “a public forum” meant a physical public space where someone could speak. You may think that banning people on Twitter amounts to not allowing people to enter a room because they have reached their maximum legal capacity, or removing them because of disruptive behavior. It is done for reasons that are not directly related to the speech being presented.

This is like saying that a newspaper is violating the First Amendment because they will not deliver a newspaper with a Trump speech to my door for free.

The First Amendment makes it unconstitutional for the government to make laws that limit the speech of its citizens. It doesn't tell citizens what to do, like force them to allow access to Trump's speeches.

Also, what is the "public forum" you are mentioning? That is a description, not a legal definition. It is certainly not part of the First Amendment.


Also, you can easily access anyone's Twitter feed without being a member.

Keep reading

This is like saying that a newspaper is violating the First Amendment because they will not deliver a newspaper with a Trump speech to my door for free.

The First Amendment makes it unconstitutional for the government to make laws that limit the speech of its citizens. It doesn't tell citizens what to do, like force them to allow access to Trump's speeches.

Also, what is the "public forum" you are mentioning? That is a description, not a legal definition. It is certainly not part of the First Amendment.


Also, you can easily access anyone's Twitter feed without being a member of the site. So your "argument" fails on all levels.

Twitter still has an action against those who could cause problems for them as a public company.

They can refuse to allow someone to use their product. This includes the president.

The president, being a public figure, cannot do things in public only for a certain segment of the public. Twitter, for the president, has to keep that access available.

You don't need to make that access available to everyone, because NOT everyone is a public figure.

However, to stay safe, they can ban the president from using their product as a platform.

No, Twitter is a private platform with its own rules, terms and conditions, just like Quora is a private non-governmental platform with its own set of rules.

First, Twitter did not rank Trump or delete his tweets. Also, no one prevents someone from speaking their minds unless they go beyond the limits set by a private platform that has agreed to abide by their terms and conditions.

To suggest that anyone could prevent Trump from speaking, complaining, lying, and defacing people is ridiculous. Trump is going to do what he always does, wrong.

Only one part of tRump's Twitter is a public forum: the replies and retweets section. That is the result of your own actions and the use of your Twitter account. Assuming no one else's account falls under the same scope, Twitter's terms of service continue to apply and can ban whoever they want. Twitter is NOT a government entity, subject to the restrictions of the 1st Amendment.

Thanks for the A2A. We (God) free speech in America. And that extends to what they call "protected speech."

Communicating with our president or any other elected servant is a protected speech. The president has no power to restrict such protected speech, for it is exactly against such restrictions that the First Amendment was passed to protect you and me.

Twitter is a private corporation and users agree to a set of rules in exchange for participating.

Trump is the president and a federal judge ruled that, in that capacity, Trump cannot block other users.

Twitter is a private company. No one has the constitutional right to demand to speak through a private company. Private companies edit, select, "control" and "set the agenda." By definition, only governments censor. Twitter is not a government.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.