[DiogenesLamp]

Okay, he's in Northern California, (Pawn of the big tech companies.)

He went to Harvard. (Clearly a special class of stupid.)

And he was appointed by Barack Obama. (Which means he's got to be upside down and backwards.)

So clearly he will rule on behalf of Twitter.

This was easy.

[Observator]

This was easy.

Lol, yes it was, since you resorted to a credentials fallacy rather than engaging the subject matter.

What the judge said is a simple fact - that companies like Twitter have not been required to police the 1st Amendment. If that statement is untrue, can you cite any cases at all to the contrary?

It's a separate argument that courts *should* interpret the law in the way you see it, and your opinion is perfectly valid there in the multiverse of opinions.