Probably not but I think the mall management could, at the request of the official or for other reasons, if they choose to. It's still their private property.
FTA: The medium of communication, whether it’s online, television, radio, print, or bullhorn—isn’t the issue
I disagree. Twitter is private. Nobody has a right to a Twitter account. It's not "the press," it's not the public square, and it's not the beneficiary of government allocated broadcast frequencies. Twitter has decided to enable users to block other users and it's really not the government's business.
Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.
Then it shouldn't be used as a public square.
It's really that simple. Twitter isn't being compelled to do anything either way! But if Twitter isn't an appropriate setting for a public forum, then the gov't can be forced not to use Twitter for certain things.
This is not about Twitter's rights to provide features. It's about the government's right to use those features.
> Politicians frequently make speeches at private events in hotel ballrooms (e.g. fundraising dinners) that are open only to approved audiences. I don't see Twitter as being much different.
There are strict rules that separate public service from campaigning activities.
So one important factual question in this case is what side of that divide the accounts in question (e.g., @realdonaldtrump) are on.
This is the heart of it. The mall can do what it wants, but the public official can’t direct mall security to kick out people with protest signs.
Which is why your local reps office isn't inside a mall, because the mall wouldn't want the unblockable distraction of protesters or public events.
Also notice that EFF winning this lawsuit will not compel all gov't users to disavow the block feature, because not all forms of gov't communications come with the same free speech obligations. The 1st amendment has different ramifications depending on the purpose of the forum; e.g., the rules for:
* NOAA emergency announcements,
* national park service informational billboards, and
* city council Q&A sessions
That's a completely different situation than what the OP is talking about, which is public officials acting and communicating in their given public roles. It's illegal as hell to spend government resources on campaign purposes. That's why officials have separate websites for their public office and for their campaign:
You throw that out so lightly. But it isn't so clear to me that Twitter can act like a public forum, and then block citizens from using it, without any due process or even notification (see: shadowbanning). Nevermind that Twitter regularly pushes its own viewpoints to the top, not only of its own homefeed, but picks-and-chooses which users get to show directly underneath the Trump's tweets. That sort of power, unregulated and non-transparent, is immense. Maybe the algorithm should be transparent.
More and more, I feel like content-providers are treating the First Amendment as damage and routing around it [1]
IANAL, but the relevant case law seems clear to me - the First Amendment doesn't apply to private property, even when that property is used like a public place, e.g. a mall.
What does seem to apply is State law - that is, seems like a US State can force a mall owner to allow people to express certain speech, without the State itself violating the First Amendment (as per [1]). Which raises the question whether the State(s) where Twitter has a legal presence could restrict its control.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
Then again IANAL, so I definitely don't understand how case law works. Just using common sense here. All I see in common between malls and Twitter/FB is they are both private property and speech is involved. There's a chasm beyond that.
> You throw that out so lightly. But it isn't so clear to me
It is clear to me: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech."
I don't see where it says anything about private corporations.
Only if by "it can be argued" you're referring to being physically capable of arguing. Otherwise, no. The first amendment was never about guaranteeing you a platform or about otherwise ensuring anyone else hears you. It was about the government not arresting you for what comes out of your mouth.
Also you put words into my mouth. I never said anything about guarantees or platforms. But consider this: if the government's intention was always to turn over every useful platform to wealthy private owners, why bother with a bill of rights or first amendment at all?
I can't even understand your logic to try to make sense of this and respond to you. Are you saying you think if the first amendment doesn't imply X then X is unconstitutional?
EDIT: Can't reply to your comment, so here's one such article, from the EFF no less, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-...
EDIT in response to your edit: you dodged this pretty cleverly. Senators say a lot of wrong and even contradictory things (I hope I don't need to waste time finding you videos), and like any interest group, EFF stretches arguments beyond their applicability to support their agenda. (Not saying they have bad agendas! But having a desirable conclusion doesn't imply good arguments are being provided for it.)
There are pretty clear lines between:
[1] "some senators (and EFF) feel a lack of net neutrality would violate the first amendment" (which wasn't your argument, and if it was, is a pretty weak claim),
[2] "net neutrality was there to protect first amendment rights" (which was your argument, and the one I was asking you to support, and a pretty easy one to prove if correct -- all you need is to quote the rationales for the net neutrality regulation we had), and
[3] "lack of net neutrality actually violates the first amendment" (which you've been arguing towards, but which would require case law as proof, not senators' feelings)
Then perhaps our elected and appointed officials should not use Twitter when conducting government business.
But more importantly, this is a related but different issue from the one discussed in the brief. There are two questions:
1. Should officials have the right to block users for their political speech
2. Should officials be allowed to use platforms that block users for their political speech, or prefer some political speech over other speech.
IMO the answer to both questions should be "no". But this is case is really about the first question.
It's why government doesn't set up in malls, the malls won't let them. But a mall isn't the best analogy for Twitter because a Twtitterfight doesn't interfere with the rest of Twitter at all.
The better analogy is a (soundproofed) hotel where your key granted you access to every room but the owner of the room can choose to deny you access. If the government (ie taxpayers) owns the room, they can't deny you access when conducting official business.
I am not an expert on this area of law, but it's possible that they could:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
> The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner – but not content – of expression.
Conservatives and Ajit Pai think twitter is not a neutral edge service.
If the eff is correct, this will open the pandoras box of lawsuits from conservatives.
Actually, this makes the analogy an exceptionally good one!
Malls and mall owners are about as far from politically neutral as you can get, especially at the local level. I've never seen a major mall be build/renovated without some squabbling about local/regional tax policy.
Politicians can't censor speech based on political content during open Q&A periods at city council meetings. And that doesn't change just because they choose to hold those meetings in the mall parking lot.
From the article: When elected officials choose to give speeches in a park, hold town hall meetings in a school stadium, stand on a street corner giving safety instructions to flood victims, or debate each other on Twitter, the public’s First Amendment rights to receive those messages are triggered.
> If the eff is correct, this will open the pandoras box of lawsuits from conservatives.
Both sides of the isle utilize the courts to protect their first amendment rights. This has always been true and will always be true.
To use a meat-space analogy. Say the government set up booths in a mall for public officials to make speeches. Could the government then kick out people who bring in pro-abortion signs to such a speech? Probably not. While there is generally no free speech right in a private venue like a mall, where the government creates in effect a public forum on private property, it has to abide by the First Amendment.
Were the law otherwise, government officials could insulate themselves from criticism simply by making speeches in hotel ballrooms and the like. That is, in effect, what Trump is trying to do with his Twitter feed.