Reply To: Packingham’s residual effects may impact Facebook, Twitter, even President

#25896

Jeremy from Indiana

I am going to dissent against the argument presented here. The issue with Trump’s account and the decision in Packingham are not directly comparable. Packingham was denied use of the entire site and not due to content whereas Trump denied access to his feed from particular individuals due to content. I think there are two totally different legal arguments there. Now, if Trump told Twitter to ban anyone connected to specific media sources from using their platform, then it would be the same. I don’t see a connection here and I think the courts will agree.