For a case to be considered in any serious capacity, you have to have sustained tenable damages. Damages you can quantify.
It would take something like a bunch of public figures or owners of companies who have had Twitter accounts that were taken down that can reasonably argue their companies/public image sustained quantifiable damage or disadvantage from the exclusion of the alleged "public platform".
That's not to say you DON'T have a case. Just that your case would have such a low barrier to be heard that the court system could be flushed to death with similar innocuous cases.
You need to be able to prove you sustained damages that can also be remedied. If it can't be remedied by the court, there is no reason to waste time on it, whether or not it has merit. Which is unfortunate.
Yes, but no.
For a case to be considered in any serious capacity, you have to have sustained tenable damages. Damages you can quantify.
It would take something like a bunch of public figures or owners of companies who have had Twitter accounts that were taken down that can reasonably argue their companies/public image sustained quantifiable damage or disadvantage from the exclusion of the alleged "public platform".
That's not to say you DON'T have a case. Just that your case would have such a low barrier to be heard that the court system could be flushed to death with similar innocuous cases.
You need to be able to prove you sustained damages that can also be remedied. If it can't be remedied by the court, there is no reason to waste time on it, whether or not it has merit. Which is unfortunate.