[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.