And no, Twitter shouldn't be the public square, but like with the Company Towns, the government sought to make it so.
No, the first amendment protects from viewpoint discrimination by the state. The power of viewpoint discrimination is far too likely to abuse for it to be only wielded against incompatible ideologies.
Company towns were built with the subsidization of the state, such that all property and businesses were owned by the mining company themselves. They were "Corporate Plantations Campuses" if you will, but you couldn't even buy food that wasn't owned by the company.
SCOTUS actually asserted over a hundred years ago that under such conditions, the company was effectively a state actor, and was required to abide by the constitution, even if the business was privately run.
Is Twitter the public square? Should it be?
Do you think the state should not be allowed to declare beliefs such as White supremacy to be terrorist threats?
And no, Twitter shouldn't be the public square, but like with the Company Towns, the government sought to make it so.
No, the first amendment protects from viewpoint discrimination by the state. The power of viewpoint discrimination is far too likely to abuse for it to be only wielded against incompatible ideologies.
Which would then mean they could censor whatever they want, no?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
If they weren't the public square.
Company towns were built with the subsidization of the state, such that all property and businesses were owned by the mining company themselves. They were "Corporate
PlantationsCampuses" if you will, but you couldn't even buy food that wasn't owned by the company.SCOTUS actually asserted over a hundred years ago that under such conditions, the company was effectively a state actor, and was required to abide by the constitution, even if the business was privately run.
What makes Twitter the public square? It is actually a private company.