<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Another Failed Lawsuit Over Trump&#8217;s Deplatforming&#8211;Rutenberg v. Twitter	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/05/another-failed-lawsuit-over-trumps-deplatforming-rutenberg-v-twitter.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/05/another-failed-lawsuit-over-trumps-deplatforming-rutenberg-v-twitter.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 May 2022 00:27:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: ThorsProvoni		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2022/05/another-failed-lawsuit-over-trumps-deplatforming-rutenberg-v-twitter.htm#comment-3247</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ThorsProvoni]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 May 2022 00:27:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=23971#comment-3247</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I have never understood why anyone tries to apply state actor doctrine to Twitter. 

Twitter is an obvious common carrier. Back in the 80s I wrote a lot of FCC filings for AT&#038;T circuit and package-switched common carriage services that hardly differed from Twitter&#039;s tweet service.

No one ever tried to apply state actor doctrine to AT&#038;T, and AT&#038;T was a natural monopoly or public franchise.

Because Twitter is a common carrier, Twitter might be able to refuse message common carriage for an individual Trump tweet under 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c)(2) by arguing that the tweet is analogous to a hazardous material.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have never understood why anyone tries to apply state actor doctrine to Twitter. </p>
<p>Twitter is an obvious common carrier. Back in the 80s I wrote a lot of FCC filings for AT&amp;T circuit and package-switched common carriage services that hardly differed from Twitter&#8217;s tweet service.</p>
<p>No one ever tried to apply state actor doctrine to AT&amp;T, and AT&amp;T was a natural monopoly or public franchise.</p>
<p>Because Twitter is a common carrier, Twitter might be able to refuse message common carriage for an individual Trump tweet under 47 U.S. Code § 230 (c)(2) by arguing that the tweet is analogous to a hazardous material.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
