We have already had such a ruling in the past in Marsh v. Alabama. It was held that a private corporation could not prohibit First Amendment-protected activity because they had become effectively a government because there was no other way to access the public square.
-
-
The reason I think we _could_ (not will, but could) see something very surprising here, at the end of the day, is that Twitter and Facebook seem to be massively more important to the political process than something like a public access station, or a mall.
-
With Kennedy gone, I do suppose that it may be less likely to have a surprising decision, but, I honestly don't know. The court will be in a tough position when someone asks why the government must allow someone on Twitter to follow the President...
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.