Thread by @BobKerns

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack I fucking DID read it. First, it is the order that carries weight, not the preceding arguments. Nonetheless, let me walk you through them.

After introducing the case on page 2 we find this, much like what I quoted above.

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack Then it goes on for about 7 pages describing Twitter and blocking, and turns to Trump's account on page 9, and continues for 3 pages. On page 12 it turns to the individual plantiffs and their being blocked. Page 14 it covers the Knight Institute.

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack Page 15 it outlines the procedural history. Pg 16, standing and jurisdiction. Pg 18 it turns to examining whether Trump's blocking injured the plaintiffs; it concludes it did. Now we're on page 23, where the Q. of who caused the harm, outlining the law, to begin, and...

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack on page 24, tuning to Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and concluding she is not, dismissing her. Pg 25 tackles Daniel Scavino, and takes 3 1/2 pages to conclude he's responsible on a continuing basis even though he may not have personally done the blocking.

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack Pg 29, the President is responsible, pg 30 tackles what redress can be applied. Pg 33 takes up the Knight org's standing. Pg 37 finally reaches 1st Amendment, pg 38 concludes it's protected speech, and pg 39 hits the meet of the issue; whether the forum doctrine applies.

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack It does this in stages. It first determines that they aren't demanding access to tweet as Trump, so it undertakes a more detailed analysis of the ordinary interactions with an account. By pg 42, it has concluded that control of the account, not ownership of Twitter, is relevant.

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack And thus by this point, your argument is demolished. It is this account, not Twitter itself, which is at issue. It is consistent on this point throughout. At no point is there the slightest support for your position.

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack It continues thu pg 50 analyzing and rejecting defense arguments. Pg 51 takes up purpose and use of the account, and which is gov speech vs private speech to which the 1st and forum analysis should apply, and takes to pg 58 to conclude:

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack It then takes up what kind of public forum, concluding on pg 62 that it is a designated public forum, before tuning to viewpoint discrimination.

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack It quickly concludes that there is in fact viewpoint discrimination, before turning to the defense's various arguments, dismissing them, and concluding that there is real, tho limited, impact on plaintiff's speech.

And so concludes on pg 72.

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack It then turns to relief. This is directed purely at Trump and Scavino, and does NOT in any way direct Twitter to do a damned thing.

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack And that brings us at last back to the conclusion. At no point in the 75 pages is there the slightest support for your claim.

But I'm not done with you yet. Because you made another entirely bogus, out-of-thin-air claim.

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack Remember this?

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack Anybody could check that. YOU could have checked that. More, it's not even remotely plausible.

It takes but moments to find their financials. Seconds to find it in a nice graphic form, to be instantly understood.

@ToreSays @WildRootsStudio @seansu @attilatheblond @koush @WarWraith @TwitterSafety @RealAlexJones @infowars @jack So, assuming you're not yourself a lying malicious troll: Take your own advice. Read. But read for yourself. Don't read and take the word of whomever is peddling you this BS.

Twitter financials here:
investor.twitterinc.com/financial-info…
Knight v Trump ruling:
evernote.com/l/AA-wr-dlOodK…