Moderator note: I received a posting on this subject today that was
badly mangled by HTML markup. Unfortunately the OP's email address was
not valid.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-dismisses-trump-twitter-case-moot

"[I]t seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when
a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it,"
Justice Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion.

"The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut off speech by
using the features that Twitter made available to him," Thomas said.
"But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smothered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms
themselves. As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to
which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the
extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting
and important questions."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

The government asked the court to dismiss the case as moot, and the
court agreed.

But yes, it does raise interesting questions. On the other hand this
type of question has been dealt with in at least one other context.
In the case of people having first amendment rights to communicate in
privately owned shopping malls, for example, my recollection is that
they are treated as quasi-governmental property and first amendment
rights can't be restricted as a result.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-dismisses-trump-twit ter-case-moot

"[I]t seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum
when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with
it," Justice Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion.

"The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut off
speech by using the features that Twitter made available to him,"
Thomas said. "But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not
smothered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the
dominant digital platforms themselves. As Twitter made clear, the
right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of
private digital platforms. The extent to which that power matters
for purposes of the First Amendment and the extent to which that
power could lawfully be modified raise interesting and important
questions."

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/5/2021 1:35 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

The government asked the court to dismiss the case as moot, and the
court agreed.

But yes, it does raise interesting questions. On the other hand this
type of question has been dealt with in at least one other context.
In the case of people having first amendment rights to communicate in privately owned shopping malls, for example, my recollection is that
they are treated as quasi-governmental property and first amendment
rights can't be restricted as a result.

...

The main case is Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74
(1980), Students were soliciting signatures on a petition. The
California Supreme Court ruled for the students and the US Supreme Court
said that California can allow the students and the US Constitution
would allow the state to do that

In American constitutional law, this case established two important rules:

* under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully
exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations
adopted by the shopping centers
* under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens
with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal
Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins Among
the states, the interpretation has been varied.

This principle was recently affirmed by California’s Supreme Court,
though the court made it clear that to qualify as a public forum “an
area within a shopping center must be designed and furnished in a way
that induces shoppers to congregate for purposes of entertainment,
relaxation, or conversation, and not merely to walk to or from a parking
area, or to walk from one store to another, or to view a store’s
merchandise and advertising displays.” Ralph’s Grocery Co. v. United
Food and Comm. Workers Union Local 8, 55 Cal. 4th 1083,1093 (2012).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4/5/2021 3:18 PM, Roy wrote:

Moderator note:  I received a posting on this subject today that was
badly mangled by HTML markup.  Unfortunately the OP's email address was
not valid.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-dismisses-trump-twitter-case-moot

"[I]t seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when
a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it,"
Justice Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion.

"The Second Circuit feared that then-President Trump cut off speech by
using the features that Twitter made available to him," Thomas said.
"But if the aim is to ensure that speech is not smothered, then the more glaring concern must perforce be the dominant digital platforms
themselves. As Twitter made clear, the right to cut off speech lies most powerfully in the hands of private digital platforms. The extent to
which that power matters for purposes of the First Amendment and the
extent to which that power could lawfully be modified raise interesting
and important questions."

Without going into which side of the aisle I'm on, I think the
government should have went ahead with the proceedings and let SCOTUS
make a decision on the merits. I realize it wouldn't be able to go back
in time and "fix it" but wasn't Roe v Wade also decided long after it
was a moot point so that others later would know which way to go? If
it's a "once in a lifetime" case that'd never be brought again (or at
least anytime soon) I could see just dropping it. But this case could
have had far-reaching implications.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

It appears that Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> said:

"[I]t seems rather odd to say that something is a government forum when
a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it,"
Justice Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion.

Thomas' concurrence is just bizarre. He appears to think that since
Facebook, Twitter et all can cancel people's accounts, they should be
regulated as common carriers.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-197_5ie6.pdf

His igorance of the way that social media actually works is breathtaking.

The reality, of course, is that if they didn't have discretion to moderate, filter, ban, and otherwise manage what they publish, they would be overrun
with spam and worse and be competely unusable.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)