@LouisIngenthron A petition has a threshold requirement that open letters do not. If you don’t collect enough sigs (a labor-intensive effort), the msg never gets to the rep.

@LouisIngenthron Petitions are also off-limits to non-citizens. You are limited to those who qualify to sign the petition.

@koherecoWatchdog And fixing that would be a reasonable reform that many people could get behind.

@LouisIngenthron Yes it would but it still would not reach a point where a petition could be the drop-in replacement for an open letter.

@koherecoWatchdog ...which is why we have open letters.

@LouisIngenthron You claimed just a moment ago that petitions replace open letters, so we don’t need open letters. You claimed if you can’t get enough sigs, the idea has no merit worthy of the reps attention. Now you’re saying open letters have a place. Yet these are the same open letters that have weakened in the face of the internet.

@LouisIngenthron Hence microblogging as a tool to effectively get a msg to a rep with the degree of impact open letters had 50+ years ago.

@koherecoWatchdog Great! If you want to do that and access that microblog platform's audience, then all you have to do is agree to play by their rules. Free marketplace of ideas in action.

@LouisIngenthron Update: two #USCongress reps now respect the First Amendment (#1A) in the microblogging domain:

Chellie Pingree→
@chelliepingree

Don Beyer→ @RepDonBeyer

@koherecoWatchdog @chelliepingree @RepDonBeyer I think it's probably less "respect" and more "pandering to the base". Just like Republicans on Truth Social.

@LouisIngenthron Truth Social is a corporate centralized partisan platform & indeed inherently would not be #1A respecting.

Not at all the same as the fedi in this regard. The fedi is 1A respecting as anyone can create an account without being excluded by the ToS of a centralized private corporation, and they can use that account to address their rep.

@koherecoWatchdog Also, the fediverse isn't necessarily as 'free' about speech as you think. Instance blocks, in particular, are heavy handed and delivered with reckless abandon.
Just look at what happened to the server I'm on.

@LouisIngenthron Anyone can participate on the fedi without any ToS to stop them. You can run your own server and use it to send microblogs to your rep.

Your rep can block you (technically, not legally), but that’s under their control. If the *rep* chooses a server they don’t control, then there’s still some small amount of risk of violating 1A, but citizens still have the option of choosing an unblocked server which ensures there is no accidental 1A violation.

@koherecoWatchdog Twitter removing people for TOS violations wasn't a 1A violation either.

@LouisIngenthron Of course it is, but not on Twitter’s part. It’s a violation on the part of the public representative, just as Trump selectively blocking those he wanted to block.

BTW, you need to violate Twitter ToS to be banned. You can simply fail to provide a mobile phone number when Twitter decides to demand it from you.

@koherecoWatchdog You don't even need to do that. Their TOS says they can ban you for no reason at all.

And, no, an action by Twitter is not a 1A violation for politicians on Twitter. They're not responsible for the actions of a third party.

@LouisIngenthron Of course they are responsible. They are responsible for their own action, including the action to empower Twitter to decide who gets to exercise 1A rights.

If you wanted a Twitter-using politician to be 1A compliant, it would require amending 1A to exclude those Twitter excludes.

@LouisIngenthron Suppose Trump were to hire some security personnel to suppress a peaceful protest during his presidency. Would you say Trump is not responsible for the actions of the security forces, who are merely working for him? Of course not.

@koherecoWatchdog Of course not. But setting up a Twitter account is not remotely comparable to paying people to beat up protesters.

@LouisIngenthron Of course it’s comparable. In both cases a politician delegates to others. The politician is not immune from the outcomes when they are in control of the delegation.

@koherecoWatchdog So then, by that logic, every politician who has ever been on cable news is violating 1A because those cable news channels are censoring me by not allowing me to be on the segment to refute the politician.

@LouisIngenthron Your attempt to grab the camera/microphone talking time from someone else is likely regarded as an oppression of someone else’s speech that they are protection. Indeed a limited resource is a bit different when the medium can only support 1 person talking at a time.

@koherecoWatchdog No, it's not. Neither is a violation of 1A, for the exact same reasons. You don't have any right to force other private parties to host your speech, even if politicians use that medium for communication.
The only thing 1A restricts in that sense is the agent of the government specifically blocking citizens.

@LouisIngenthron Your 3rd sentence is true, but it shows you’ve misunderstood the problem. It’s not that citizens have the power to force private entities to protect their speech-- the problem is that politicians have chosen to empower an entity that does not honor free speech. That is why 1A is violated.

@koherecoWatchdog They didn't "empower" them with anything other than hosting their speech. They have full control over who to ban from their own account.

@LouisIngenthron Full control indeed. Absolutely. The politician is in control. That is key. That is why they are accountable.

@koherecoWatchdog Accountable for their own actions, not the actions of a third party.

@LouisIngenthron It’s their own actions I’m talking about. The politician’s actions are in play here, of course.

@koherecoWatchdog Exactly. Politicians have no control over who Twitter bans, which is why it has nothing to do with #1A.

@LouisIngenthron Politicians have control over their own actions, which includes making Twitter’s ToS a precondition for speech. Hence why 1A is violated.

@koherecoWatchdog Again, that's a nonsense claim. Cite a source.