Re: state and local government restricting speech. Note that state constitutions also contained (and contain) bills of rights that constrain state governments. (Virginia's Declaration of Rights famously inspired the Federal Bill of Rights.)
Re: whether things are "town halls." I notice you never mention the term "public forum" or the "public forum doctrine." Under US law, your private property does become a public forum where speech cannot be regulated by whim of the owner -- if the type of the property is a traditional public forum. Public forums include parks, shopping malls, and sidewalks; they include privately-owned malls and business districts open to the public; and they include social media like Twitter but not with regard to its owners -- rather, with regard to the ability of government accounts to block other users from interacting.
"In 2019, the 2nd and 4th Circuit Courts of Appeals ruled that government use of social media creates a designated public forum, and government officials can't engage in viewpoint discrimination by blocking comments. In a widely watched case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (2019), that President Trump violated the First Amendment by removing from the “interactive space” of his Twitter account several individuals who were very critical of him and his governmental policies. The appeals court agreed with a lower court that the interactive space associated with Trump’s Twitter account “@realDonaldTrump” is a designated public forum and that blocking individuals because of their political expression constitutes viewpoint discrimination."
Thanks for the comment. Could you say a bit more about how think these things are relevant to the underlying points the essay makes? I don't think Knight is a particularly helpful case to get at the underlying problem precisely because it's about the actions of a government actor, not twitter, but maybe you're drawing a different conclusion from it that isn't clear to me.
A lot going on here but I appreciate the theory anchored to material concerns. Indeed, bosses and employment are the true barriers to free speech just like they were the main sources of segregation that most people used to have to deal with the most.
Re: state and local government restricting speech. Note that state constitutions also contained (and contain) bills of rights that constrain state governments. (Virginia's Declaration of Rights famously inspired the Federal Bill of Rights.)
Re: whether things are "town halls." I notice you never mention the term "public forum" or the "public forum doctrine." Under US law, your private property does become a public forum where speech cannot be regulated by whim of the owner -- if the type of the property is a traditional public forum. Public forums include parks, shopping malls, and sidewalks; they include privately-owned malls and business districts open to the public; and they include social media like Twitter but not with regard to its owners -- rather, with regard to the ability of government accounts to block other users from interacting.
"In 2019, the 2nd and 4th Circuit Courts of Appeals ruled that government use of social media creates a designated public forum, and government officials can't engage in viewpoint discrimination by blocking comments. In a widely watched case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump (2019), that President Trump violated the First Amendment by removing from the “interactive space” of his Twitter account several individuals who were very critical of him and his governmental policies. The appeals court agreed with a lower court that the interactive space associated with Trump’s Twitter account “@realDonaldTrump” is a designated public forum and that blocking individuals because of their political expression constitutes viewpoint discrimination."
Thanks for the comment. Could you say a bit more about how think these things are relevant to the underlying points the essay makes? I don't think Knight is a particularly helpful case to get at the underlying problem precisely because it's about the actions of a government actor, not twitter, but maybe you're drawing a different conclusion from it that isn't clear to me.
A lot going on here but I appreciate the theory anchored to material concerns. Indeed, bosses and employment are the true barriers to free speech just like they were the main sources of segregation that most people used to have to deal with the most.
There is a lot going on in this post cuz if you want to solve free speech you gotta go big! ;P