Reply to post: First Amendment Violation?

First Amendment Violation?

I have a big problem with this judges ruling and its consistency with the rest of US law. There is a big difference between silencing a person's views, and mandating that a specific forum be maintained to host those views. The first amendment says that they government may not pass a law preventing someone from speaking their mind about a political subject, but it does not say that every possible method be made available to them. They may not be able to post on Trump's own feed just as they can't spraypaint their message on the side of the White House - but they can certainly post on their OWN twitter feed. They can write a letter, start a petition, do ANY NUMBER of things. Their right to speak their opinion has not been blocked.

This is one of the reasons that I dislike mixing "social media" and "government". Social Media is conducted within the terms of service of a private sector organization. A private sector company has to be able to say what is, and what is not, allowed on their servers -- especially now that the law has changed so that they can be criminally liable for user posts even if they don't know about them. If Trump or some member of city council posts something on twitter, does that now mean that Twitter has to host it indefinitely and allow other people to comment on it?

If a politician posts something on their own website, such as a letter of comment from a constituent, does that mean that they have to allow ALL people to be able to comment on it and be forced to publish those views/letters as well? If not, how is that any different than posting something on Twitter or Facebook?

People who get rowdy, obnoxious, or rude get kicked out of public meetings all of the time, and repeat offenders get banned. How is that any different than getting blocked on Facebook or Twitter? Or is this judge saying that it isn't different, and that people can't be banned from speaking at public meetings or removed from the podium when their allotted time runs out?

As much as I hate Trump's obnoxiousness, especially on twitter, I don't agree with this judge and expect this to get flipped on appeal. As long as people can read his drivil, and the government doesn't forbid them from posting their own drivel well thought out opinions, I don't see the first amendment as written being violated.