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.
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.