I guess that's where I get confused. If that decision says he's using it as a public forum, does that come with any strings attached for the platform being used in that manner? I try to imagine if Trump used an auditorium to announce exactly the same things he would say on twitter, but banned a dude that keeps shouting at him during his announcements, we would just shrug our shoulders. It would seem there is a disconnect on a ruling that would force Trump to let that guy into the auditorium, but could also deny Trump the right to use the auditorium in the first place. Trump can't go in there when he wants to, and the other guy can't be forced out. Feels uneven. I'm not even sure if that's a good equivalent situation, but it's the best I could come up with.
I say all of this respectfully.
No disconnect whatsoever.
Either legally or logically. Twitter can let Donald use their services (auditorium) or not as they see fit. IF they let Donald use it, the 2nd Circuit said he can’t block anyone from seeing or responding to his tweets because of the 1st Amendment Rights of the public to seek redress and address grievances to the government are impinged upon if he does..
Citizens-protected, not restricted, by the 1st A.
Twitter-protected, not restricted, by the 1st.
Donald (President/government)-restricted by the 1st Amendment. Government doesn’t have rights under our Constitution. Only limited powers and authorities.
That is the way it works.
This is a legal discussion. Read the decision. Cite to legal authority. Law rarely deals with how something “feels”.
Told you the result of the decision and my interpretation of the law (as an attorney who has actually read the case and other relevant authority). Beyond that, I’m not interested in convincing you. Do with it what you will. *shouldershrug*