Re:“realdonaldtrump’s account was inadvertently deactivated ...
by kelnos on Thursday November 02, 2017 @09:45PM
(#15616093)
Not really the same thing. In your first link, the court found that, for environmental reasons, the areas where the picketers were located should be considered public space, and therefore First Amendment protections apply. They're not claiming that the company must uphold people's 1A rights, but that the company does not actually have full legal control of that land.
(In addition, I believe acts like picketing an employer are specifically protected by law.)
Re:“realdonaldtrump’s account was inadvertently deactivated ...
by gpm on Thursday November 02, 2017 @10:09PM
(#15616194)
> In your first link, the court found that, for environmental reasons, the areas where the picketers were located should be considered public space, and therefore First Amendment protections apply. They're not claiming that the company must uphold people's 1A rights
Yes, that was my interpretation as well (and goes toward my comment about it at most justifying violating the TOS).
> the company does not actually have full legal control of that land.
No... I don't think that that is a fair statement of the conclusion. The conclusion is rather that given that they have chosen to let their property be used as a public space the state can't apply the law it's power (i.e. enforce laws) in a way that would violate their right to speak (picket).
While there may be acts specifically protecting picketing (I don't know) the opinion doesn't seem to be about any such acts.
Re:“realdonaldtrump’s account was inadvertently deactivated ...
by Domenic_S on Thursday November 02, 2017 @08:58PM
(#15615880)
The case in question: https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/ama...
Much to my surprise I found out today that the first amendment does actually sometimes extend past the government to private companies. Here [0] is one case where the supreme court found it did, and here [1] is the reddit thread where this came up, about a lawsuit which (amongst other claims) argues that YouTube has managed to fall afoul of the first amendment.
I make no claim that the first amendment would plausibly expand to twitter in this case, I suspect not. I suspect that it would, at most, make it legal for Trump to violate the TOS and create a new account or something. I am not a lawyer, have not read all the relevant rulings, and am certainly not qualified to give legal advice on this.
[0] https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/ama...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/7abbas/prageru_sues_yo...