> The Internet Association - quoted in the article - is concerned about the implications of that case but glad to hear you are not.
Yes, hence they provided a brief asking the court to rule a certain way, and the court did, by keeping the ruling particular to Trump's government account.
There isn't any newer or better ruling, you're just misunderstanding this one.
> by keeping the ruling particular to Trump's government account.
From the article I cited:
"The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University on August 10 sent the Justice Department a list of 41 accounts that had remained blocked from Trump’s @RealDonaldTrump account. The seven users who filed suit had their accounts unblocked in June."
aka Not his government (@POTUS at the time) account. Once again, misinformation from you. :(
The thing you're still missing is that the ruling was that the @RealDonaldTrump account was being used in an official government capacity, and therefore would fall under said government specific regulations.
If you look at the actual ruling[0], you'll see that on page 9-11 of the ruling, they outline ways in which the @RealDonaldTrump account was used in an official capacity, and on pages 42 and 43, they outline how this is governmental control of the account (but not of twitter as a whole).
Quoting the ruling:
> First, to potentially qualify as a forum, the space in
question must be owned or controlled by the government...Here, the government-control prong of the analysis is met. Though Twitter is a...company that is not government-owned, the President and Scavino nonetheless exercise control over various aspects of the @realDonaldTrump account...The President and Scavino’s control over the @realDonaldTrump account is also governmental...the President presents the
@realDonaldTrump account as being a presidential account as
opposed to a personal account and, more importantly, uses the account to take actions that can be taken only by the President as President
So please, stop crying "misinformation" when you're just wrong about the legalities of the situation. You may disagree with the ruling, but my description of it is factual.
Was there a more recent case+ruling that is more relevant and clarifying? Can you share a reference on that? Thanks.