[ggggtez]

If you read the ruling, you'll not this is not just about reading the information, but the First Amendment (free speech).

The government cannot prevent people from commenting and discussing the government's speech (through retweets etc). Logging out is not a solution. Sure, you can talk in person, or on Facebook, or even copy-paste the content. But you couldn't retweet, and thus you were blocked from participating in the public discourse.

Turns out, the government can't interfere with private citizen's ability to engage in public discussion about the government, even if it's just on some dumb site like Twitter.

In fact, if his account was private, and it was only discussion for his personal friends or whatever, then there wouldn't even be an issue. The public nature of the account is exactly why he can't block people. It would be like the government sending an official request to Fox News to block democrats from appearing on the air. Sure, they could just watch on TV, but the government has essentially told a private entity they have to block certain citizens from speaking on their platform. It doesn't matter if Fox News would agree to it or not, the government cannot even ask for it.

[the_watcher]

I did read the ruling, I just don't find the argument compelling. How does being blocked prevent anyone from discussing the content of the account? The only semi-coherent argument is that... there is a First Amendment right to retweet a government affiliated account from the account you want to retweet it from? And that somehow, having access to that specific method of engaging with the content, despite numerous other avenues existing, including on Twitter itself, blocks you from participating in the public discourse?

I thought I took the broadest possible view of free speech, seriously. I just honestly can't get to the idea that there is a First Amendment right to retweet from your preferred account (which is the only thing that a block actually prevents) or that not being able to retweet from your preferred account actually impacts the ability to participate in public discourse.

Sidebar: Twitter should be terrified of this, right? This is treating behavior on a private company's site as protected speech. I know that right now it's limited to the government, but it's now a much smaller leap to "Twitter is protected speech" in the same way that "putting up a flyer in a public square is protected speech".

[Fjolsvith]

> I know that right now it's limited to the government, but it's now a much smaller leap to "Twitter is protected speech" in the same way that "putting up a flyer in a public square is protected speech".

All the social media companies should be quaking in their boots. For example, Facebook disallows convicted sex offenders from their service. If these free speech distinctions continue to move in this direction, courts will eventually force these platforms to allow everyone.