The crux of their argument has nothing to do with whether Twitter is a private forum. That is why the suit is against Trump, not Twitter.
The underlying thesis is that Trump (as a government official) can’t pick a forum for public discourse that exerts viewpoint discrimination on participants.
To wit: it would actually be fine if Twitter banned all re-posting, replying and re-tweeting. Then all readers would be treated equally. This is the equivalent of posting on a blog with comments disabled, or delivering a televised speech.
The issue is that Trump is using Twitter’s tools to discriminate among users based upon their viewpoint. That’s what’s not OK. Just as it would not be OK for a local board to hold their meetings at a private country club, where only members are allowed to observe and comment - especially so if, for example, only men were allowed to be members. There’s nothing wrong with having a private members-only club, the issue is with the governmental body choosing that medium for public commentary.
The underlying thesis is that Trump (as a government official) can’t pick a forum for public discourse that exerts viewpoint discrimination on participants.
To wit: it would actually be fine if Twitter banned all re-posting, replying and re-tweeting. Then all readers would be treated equally. This is the equivalent of posting on a blog with comments disabled, or delivering a televised speech.
The issue is that Trump is using Twitter’s tools to discriminate among users based upon their viewpoint. That’s what’s not OK. Just as it would not be OK for a local board to hold their meetings at a private country club, where only members are allowed to observe and comment - especially so if, for example, only men were allowed to be members. There’s nothing wrong with having a private members-only club, the issue is with the governmental body choosing that medium for public commentary.