Will this force Twitter to allow all legal speech on their platform?
That's quite the leap. Twitter is not a representative of the federal government.
No, it hasn't, except insofar as such a right is protected against a specific form of government action.
It has ruled, more accurately, that individuals have the right to not have the government officials exclude them from full participation in particular corners of Twitter used for official government purposes.
Sure, but that end result isn't what the courts have found is prohibited, they have found that government officials excluding people on certain bases is prohibited.
So if they ban someone and that person is unable to respond anyone else's twitter, that is fine. But the moment they ban someone from responding to the President's twitter, they have violated that person's right in the same way the President did.
I think the simplest way to think about this is to consider a simpler example. Say that a government entity is holding a town hall for public comment on some issue, but expecting a large crowd, they have to use a private venue to host it as all government venues are too small. They pick Richy Rich's Stereotypical Rich Person Club. On the day of the town hall, the club decides as a private club they want to ban some people from being on their property, thus denying them access to the town hall.
What if they choose to block everyone on the opposing side of the issue?
What if they block anyone who doesn't show up in a custom made suit?
What if they decide to block all non-members for that day?
What if they decide to block any minority?
Despite it being a private company, by doing business with the government in allowing them to use the venue to host the town hall, enforcing the rules that normally a private club is legally allowed to enforce can still violate's a person's Constitutional rights.
The sole exception would be overt threats of violence, which are generally not protected as free speech in the US.
Yes, that is the cost to Twitter in hosting an official government account. If they do not like this, they can choose to not host an official government account.
Same way as if a venue decides to host an official government function they forfeit their normal ability to ban people for as long as that venue is serving as an official government location.
To give an extreme example, even a school cannot ban a registered sex offender from being on the premise as long as the school is serving as a voting place (assuming the individual still has their right to vote, which may possibly have been removed but isn't guaranteed).
"The court ruled the state does not violate a convicted sex offender’s voting rights by prohibiting him from voting at a polling place located in a high school, and instead requiring him to vote via one of three alternatives."
https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/46959-th-circuit-p...
(Plus, schools where you vote are generally owned by the state, so it's not a good example for the restrictions on private companies)
That's the thing, there's no such right. There's a prohibition on government from silencing people based on their views. But this prohibition doesn't extend to private companies or private individuals, if they're acting of their own accord.
As the court wrote,
"the City’s designation is analogous to a government license, a government contract, or a government-granted monopoly, none of which converts a private entity into a state actor — unless the private entity is performing a traditional, exclusive public function."
Since it's unlike that Twitter can be considered to be performing "a traditional, exclusive public function", it's unlikely they'll fall under that provision.
You can read an analysis about why this conflicts with twitter's TOS here: https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/appeals-court-rules-trump-ca...
If and when a court decides upon that issue, it may conflict with Twitter's TOS; this one certainly doesn't.
Based on this case I could see someone being deplatformed suing twitter on the grounds that twitter is a Quasi-Public Place because it is functionally akin to public property.
> "Nor do we consider whether private social media companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms."
I wonder if this means government accounts will be outside the purview of algorithm manipulation? Also, what happens to ex-officials, are they under the same rules?
Not unless Twitter gives them so way of influencing that manipulation.
> Also, what happens to ex-officials, are they under the same rules?
No, because it only affects officials using the account for official purposes. Someone out of office can't do that, by definition.
Re: ex-officials. Some times they become involved in quasi governmental institutions or continue their influence after serving, but it makes sense if it follows official dates in actual power of the offices.
Let’s say a couple of countries overseas go to war with each other. One is the aggressor and one is the defender, one is a democracy the other dictatorial. Does twitter stay neutral? Do they take sides? Do they take s cue from US state department or the UN?
I'm pretty sure the rules of the US constitution regarding the government only apply to branches of the US government.
> Let’s say a couple of countries overseas go to war with each other. One is the aggressor and one is the defender, one is a democracy the other dictatorial. Does twitter stay neutral? Do they take sides? Do they take s cue from US state department or the UN?
This ruling doesn't affect what Twitter can do, only what the US government and its officials can do.
> Nor do we consider whether private social media companies are bound by the First Amendment when policing their platforms.
So .. No, Twitter themselves blocking is _not_ a violation
No. Twitter is a private business. Trump is a public official, and he represents the government. Trump blocking someone is an act of the government, not a private business.
If it was a President whom the moderators at Twitter supported and they willingly blocked all of this President's critics on his behalf, would that make it legal?
From the decision: "The First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees...."
I believe the problem is that Trump uses the account for official purposes. I assume that any account that carries out official government business falls under this decision.
> If it was a President whom the moderators at Twitter supported and they willingly blocked all of this President's critics on his behalf, would that make it legal?
If it were on his behalf, I assume the court would consider this equivalent to the President himself blocking them. If Twitter themselves blocked people independently and without colluding with the President, I have no idea. I assume private businesses can continue to block/ban whomever they see fit, but if a public official were to only use platforms that automatically blocked dissenting views, I don't know what the court would say. It's an interesting question.
When they are working with the government, it is not so clear cut. Twitter hosting Trump's tweets is a business relationship between the government and a private business. Otherwise you have created a loophole the size of Alaska that allows government to violate constitutional rights by outsourcing the actual violation.