Can you imagine if Trump gets his Twitter account re-instated?

[kentuck]

The incitement of January 6th will look like a church picnic. He would create a climate of violence all across this land. He is a threat to our society.

I have a feeling that people know that, yet they do nothing about it....except wait.

Wait until it is not possible to wait anymore. The civil war has begun. The truth has been demolished. A brutal and violent dictator has taken over our country.

Then people will say, why didn't they do something?

[Ocelot II]

1. He won't. As Lawrence Tribe pointed out, the lawsuit is a nonstarter,

like most of TFG's lawsuits. Twitter is a private company to which the First Amendment doesn't apply, and it can set its TOS and remove people who violate them.

[kentuck]

2. Yes, that is true...

but no one knows what might come from our judges nowadays.

[PSPS]

3. Actually, the First Amendment does apply to Twitter & all private companies

It's the First Amendment that makes this a non-starter because it protects private concerns. There is no public actor here, hence, the First Amendment doesn't come into play at all. The government can't compel a private company to publish/carry anything.

[Ocelot II]

5. Exactly my point.

[keithbvadu2]

6. "can't compel"... That's the RW argument about wedding cakes for gay couples.

"can't compel"... That's the RW argument about wedding cakes for gay couples.

Twitter should be able to use that reasoning.

[PSPS]

7. No, that's different. That involves a protected class, like a "whites only" establishment.

As much as he thinks he is or should be, trump is not a protected class.

[fescuerescue]

12. Aren't bakeries LOSING that argument?

I could see how that could backfire on Twitter.

[PSPS]

4. The media would love it. More freak/circus. Ratings!!111!!1!

[marybourg]

10. DU would become unbearable, with postings and re-postings

of his every utterance.

[Kablooie]

8. It would be a violation of Twitter's rights.

The government stepping in to force a company to accept someone they deem unacceptable, (not based on race, creed or sex) is a violation of their rights.

[kentuck]

9. What if they were not forced but volunteered to do it, so as not to lose customers?

Would they be permitted to do that?

[Ms. Toad]

14. They were doing just that before they banned him for life.

[kentuck]

15. Did they ban him for life?

I thought it was for two or four years?

Anyway, his first impulse would be to offer a bribe, maybe $10 million dollars?

[Ms. Toad]

16. The original ban was for life -

They may have modified it since the original ban. But the point is the same - they gave him the run of twitter before without any constitutional barrier. Not sure why it would be different now.

[kentuck]

17. Thanks!

After the insurrection, they saw what he did and they held him accountable, as much as they were capable of doing.

It's sad the way he rushes to the Courts with his every grievance. He's a pitiful loser.

[MFM008]

11. Maggot knows

Its a non starter. His bitching is to draw attention and use for fundraising like everything he does.

[Vinca]

13. I don't see why they would have to give his the account back. It's a private company.

How would Trump like it if a judge ordered him to make a percentage of the rooms at Mar-a-Grifto set aside for subsidized housing for the homeless?

[LetMyPeopleVote]

18. Because he has so much success filing lawsuits.

Link to tweet