The Supreme Court pretty recently expressed its unwillingness to expand the state action doctrine in Halleck.
And Paul Domer was a student who wrote a law review article; he's not an expert. Marsh is inapt, and again, SCOTUS has been clear that it has no interest in expanding it
And Paul Domer was a student who wrote a law review article; he's not an expert. Marsh is inapt, and again, SCOTUS has been clear that it has no interest in expanding it
https://twitter.com/JennyLambe/status/1407065492150497283
Repeat after me: "traditionally and exclusively performed by the state"
Holy cow, this part of Paul Domer's "expert" law review article:
1) Actually, they do
2) Packingham suggests *nothing of the sort*
1) Actually, they do
2) Packingham suggests *nothing of the sort*
And just wow:
-"A public forum graced with First Amendment protections?" WTF does that mean?
-These cases are about whether a specific government official's page is a public forum by way of that official's ability to block/remove content. Not whether Twitter is a public forum
-"A public forum graced with First Amendment protections?" WTF does that mean?
-These cases are about whether a specific government official's page is a public forum by way of that official's ability to block/remove content. Not whether Twitter is a public forum
This is just an embarrassingly bad article
Revealing:
Ah yes, the "being a primary source for information to the public" exception to the First Amendment.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
