It's further complicated by the people who sued Trump for blocking them. They won, he had to unblock them.
Considering they could log out (or open a private tab) and view the content, obviously it wasn't access to the information that was fundamental but the act of the President taking a step to reduce someone's access.
With that in mind, the underlying host taking a similar action is either a) Okay because it's their system? or b) Bad because they're blocking or altering the message?
We're in this really weird spot of free speech vs private property vs public forum vs free access vs..
This is a point of concern I have that I rarely see others bring up. The problem with A is that it creates a loop hole as all the next government official has to do is pick a host that aligns with their own views to communicate to the masses.
Imagine a future president picks a Catholic forum to make the same sort of announcements that Trump currently does, specifically a catholic forum that bans any advocacy of pro-choice discussion. It is relatively easy to find a similar forum on any side of a modern hot button political issue.
Not really - the 1st amendment limits the government (including the President), not the public nor private companies.
Twitter's upcoming option to limit replies is being touted as a politician's dream, but in the US it's likely going to be unuseable for the same reason
If you want to go Constitution 101, you should probably be correct. The text of the 1st Amendment says "Congress" and nothing about the President/Executive Branch.. and is wholly irrelevant to the point I raised.
I think you will find that the prevailing interpretation is much broader than a literal reading of the text, in a number of ways. Though it mentions "make no law" it applies to executive agency rulings, though it specifies "Congress" it applies equally to state and local governments, etc.
If you're going to make legal nitpicks, you should probably have a thorough understanding of the jurisprudence.
In my original GP comment above, I was describing actual, recent rulings until the "nuh uh 1st amendment!" comment.
And I wish you were right. That was how I always read it too but we've found out repeatedly - and recently - that state & local governments (and state universities) can ban numerous things, contrary to the 1st Amendment.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the first amendment is exactly why state governments and local governments must allow, for example, the local satanic temple to open the council meeting with a prayer. And why publicly funded universities must allow street preachers and pro-life demonstrators.
Considering they could log out (or open a private tab) and view the content, obviously it wasn't access to the information that was fundamental but the act of the President taking a step to reduce someone's access.
With that in mind, the underlying host taking a similar action is either a) Okay because it's their system? or b) Bad because they're blocking or altering the message?
We're in this really weird spot of free speech vs private property vs public forum vs free access vs..