Can you provide a citation or summarize the ruling?
Does this right to post prevent Jim from zotting someone?
It essentially means the state (any government official acting in the capacity of the state’s business or interests) cannot compel someone to silence another’s speech, nor can the state prohibit ones access to speak, post, etc. as that violates the 1st. Which is the guts of a vast majority of counter argument you are receiving. It wasn’t just “the dnc” there were several active government officials acting in the states capacity making such requests to twitter officials or other public square type entities and receiving direct response and /or positive action to said requests.
Were Twitter officiants compelled by this? Doesn’t matter, the request in and of itself violates the 1st regardless which side of the aisle asked.