Nuovo accurato esame (e rigetto) della tesi per cui Twitter è state actor quando censura i post

Altro caso di seguace di Trump circa la tesi della frode elettorale nelle elezioni 2020   ,  in cui Twitter flaggò con frasi cautelative (e poi sospese)  i post ritenuti estremisti e quindi contrari alla propria policy.

Questi ad es. (persona di una certa cultura, peraltro):

<Audit every California ballot Election fraud is rampant nationwide and we all know California is one of the culprits Do it to protect the integrity of that state’s elections>

L’appello del 9 circuito, 10 marzo 2023, n° 22-15071, R. O’Handley c. Twitter e altri, rigetta la strampalat tesi che mira a ripristinare i post flaggati/account sospesi  in base al 1 emendamento, considerando Twitter strumento pubblicistico.

Sono analizzati tutti i soliti argomenti e la corte conferma il 1 grado. Sentenza chiara ed istruttiva come ripasso sul tema.

Riporto solo questo passaggio:

<<As a private company, Twitter is not ordinarily subject to the Constitution’s constraints. See Prager University v. Google LLC, 951 F.3d 991, 995–99 (9th Cir. 2020). Determining whether this is one of the exceptional cases in which a private entity will be treated as a state actor for constitutional purposes requires us to grapple with the state action doctrine. This area of the law is far from a “model of consistency,” Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374, 378 (1995) (citation omitted), due in no small measure to the fact that “[w]hat is fairly attributable [to the State] is a matter of normative judgment, and the criteria lack rigid simplicity,” Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001).     Despite the doctrine’s complexity, this case turns on the simple fact that Twitter acted in accordance with its own content-moderation policy when it limited other users’ access to O’Handley’s posts and ultimately suspended his account. Because of that central fact, we hold that Twitter did not operate as a state actor and therefore did not violate the Constitution.>>

(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)