At the bottom of your Wikipedia article there is a more relevant case:

"While the Marsh holding at first appears somewhat narrow and inapplicable to the present day due to the disappearance of company towns from the United States, it was raised in the somewhat high-profile 1996 cyberlaw case, Cyber Promotions v. America Online, 948 F. Supp. 436, 442 (E.D. Pa. 1996). Cyber Promotions wished to send out "mass email advertisements" to AOL customers. AOL installed software to block those emails. Cyber Promotions sued on free speech grounds and cited the Marsh case as authority for the proposition that even though AOL's servers were private property, AOL had opened them to the public to a degree sufficient that constitutional free speech protections could be applied.

The federal district court disagreed, thereby paving the way for spam filters at the Internet service provider level."

> A more relevant case

So are we deliberately conflating spam with political discourse now? Seriously?

Not at all, no idea where you got that idea. The discussion is about the right of the government to force private companies to do things with their own property.

The AOL case is more relevant because it involves a private internet company and data crossing it's privately held servers, much like Twitter today.

The Marsh case involves a company acting like a government, then trying to stifle free speech. Twitter never acted like a government.

The Marsh case handles a scenario in which a private company controlled the public space.

The big 3 of social media currently do the same thing, however in a digital sphere. Trumps twitter, for example, was ruled as a public resource and therefore he couldn't block users from his feed. So here we have a private property leveraged as a public gathering space.

Would you have the same opinion here if Twitter was banning minorities based on race? Is it still a private company that can do whatever they please?

==The Marsh case handles a scenario in which a private company controlled the public space.==

and acted as a de-facto government by providing fire, police and other services typically provided by governments. Twitter is not similar, as multiple people have already mentioned.

==Trumps twitter, for example, was ruled as a public resource and therefore he couldn't block users from his feed.==

His personal Twitter feed is a public resource. Trump is the government, blocking people is literally the government limiting free speech. Twitter is not the government.

==Would you have the same opinion here if Twitter was banning minorities based on race? Is it still a private company that can do whatever they please?==

No, because they are very different, as explained by justice.gov [1].

"Federal laws prohibit discrimination based on a person's national origin, race, color, religion, disability, sex, and familial status."

[1] https://www.justice.gov/crt/federal-protections-against-nati...

> No, because they are very different, as explained by justice.gov [1].

Then please explain to me individuals like Sarah Jeong being outwardly racist yet a member of the blue check cadre.

There is clearly a double standard here, and you seem to be in the grouping of individuals that appreciate the oppression when it suits your own interests.

Now we have moved the goalposts from banning people to giving blue checks. I'm not even sure what stance you are arguing anymore. One more time, Twitter is not the government.

Mike Cernovich is outwardly racist and has a blue check, what's your point? Are you applying a double standard?

I'm pointing out that twitter selectively bans individuals who step over a line arbitrarily drawn by twitter, not anti discrimination laws.

Which people continue to explain is perfectly legal because twitter is NOT the government.

Only political discourse is free speech?

The government does indeed criminalize spammers, so I'm not sure where your logic is going here.

The AOL case wasn't merely about spam--you can't pretend that it was. Here's part of the opinion:

> By providing its members with access to the Internet through its e-mail system so that its members can exchange information with those members of the public who are also connected to the Internet, AOL is not exercising any of the municipal powers or public services traditionally exercised by the State as did the private company in Marsh. Although AOL has technically opened its e-mail system to the public by connecting with the Internet, AOL has not opened its property to the public by performing any municipal power or essential public service and, therefore, does not stand in the shoes of the State.