Escapist publishing their own articles would count them as a publisher.
Then you need to come up with a good hypothetical since just saying "two genders" isn't making the point you think it is.
Why are you asking a question other people have already answered? I have some guesses, none of which sound good.
Because he is making government proclamations through twitter, if he bans a user then that stops them from being able to see that or interact with it which is against the first amendment. So its not a public platform, but his account is because he made it one. Being an elected official changes how you are able to interact with the public.
Except they haven't the argument is it should be one or the other while here on the Escapist both apply in different aspects. Why would that NOT apply to twitter?
But there's no rule saying you can only interact with them in one specific way.
Then answer why Twitter can't be classed as both in different aspects just like this very site?
If you actually need that level of specificity in a legal code to determine what is or is not the appropriate thing to say or do in a given situation, it raises questions.
The law is what the courts rules it to be and as right now, that is the ruling of the law.
We aren't talking about that, you really are being about obtuse about this. I sent you a link to an article about it, you should read it since I'm really not sure what your overall point here is and it would probably answer your question better.
He can't change that law on his own. That is what we have congress for. The president cannot even present a bill to congress, a member of congress must do that.
Considering I was on about the argument about peoples free speech I think you ACCIDENTALLY mis-interpreted that.
Twitter is a private platform. It can accept or deny anyone according to its rights as owner. If it bans anyone, it does not infringe their right to free speech, because there's the whole of the rest of the internet for them to make themselves heard.
No, indeed you can't... but no-one can.
It's immaterial. One does not refer to a grocery store as a hospital because it has a pharmacy.
So if Trump allows some constituents to talk to him directly at Trump tower etc (which he does, generally large donors) he must allow everyone to?
That twitter may very well be about to end up classed as both.
Do you have any actual objections to my hypothetical? Because as far as I can tell, you only just objected on the basis of "that hasn't happened yet"
If I misinterpreted, then this is a lateral move as the argument does not see the difference between putting someone on the ignore list and having them stalk and harass you.
No, its really not and I still don't understand what you want from any of this.
You need to spell out your hypothetical, actually present it since all you really said before was you mentioned "two genders" you didn't in what context that was, you didn't say what the reason for a ban was, when I tried to give some examples you poopooed them. So you need to spell it out.
USA