And you don’t think that to achieve that goal, they convinced, coerced, threatened, a social media platform to restrict posts (speech) that based on historical precedent, the users believed to be free from government interference?

 I don't think Twitter is a defacto public square or a State Actor.  As for the FBI, no evidence supports coercion or threats but evidence does support convincing.  I think there is a possibility that threats were not necessary, but I am not going to say it did or did not happen without evidence.

 
"If we’re going to have lawsuits and laws that say campaign donations are a form of speech (which has been stated) how can we not do the same here and say that post on a social media platform everyone previously believed we’re free from government interference, we’re in fact NOT free from government interference."

 Why on earth would anyone think social media posts are free from government interference?  It's a private company letting you use their product so they can sell ads.  This forum is a less efficient version of that.  I have no reason to believe this forum would be "free" from any type of interference.  The owner/operator could easily go contract or volunteer to share information with the Government tomorrow.

 
"That rings of a first amendment violation."

 Perhaps from the FBI, but not from Twitter.

 I thought you were saying Twitter is culpable as well since it is a defacto public square.

pg wrote on 12/04/22 at 16:35:42:



Or how about this?

Twitter allowed government officials and other “stakeholders” to use a secret portal called, “Partner Support Portal” to report anything they believed to be “misinformation.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/12/elon-musk-reacts-america-first-legal...

Best regards,

This is beyond that threshold................

  According to multiple cases this is not true.  I already used the full interview from the FOX source as part of my assessment.  The FBI lying to Twitter in meetings to alter their publishing behavior - on their own property - does not make them a State Actor.  This does not mean Twitter is obligated to protect your first amendment giving you the right to use their property.

"In United States constitutional law, a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the federal and state governments from violating certain rights and freedoms."

 

"Twitter allowed government officials and other “stakeholders” to use a secret portal called, “Partner Support Portal” to report anything they believed to be “misinformation.”"

 That doesn't make them a State Actor that has to protect your first amendment rights.  Having a portal that is secret or not, to communicate  with the US Government, does not make any business a State Actor.  This portal does require Twitter protect your first amendment, therefore you do not get the right to use Twitter.

 If a voluntary private portal was all you needed to become a State Actor, every private contractor handling classified information is a State Actor and is now obligated to protect your 1st Amendment.

 Great reading on the subject:

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority - 365 U.S. 715
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association - 535 U.S. 971
Shelley v. Kraemer - 334 U.S. 1
Rendell-Baker v. Kohn - 457 U.S. 830

"I'm glad you agree with me."

 I don't agree with you and removing the last part of my statement removes context.  Let me clarify:

 IF a voluntary private portal was all you needed to become a State Actor, and it is NOT, every private contractor handling classified information would then become a State Actor allowing all US citizens access to the classified information since all US citizens would have the right to use the company assets.

 So if I have a company that decrypts Iranian communications on nuclear refinement and deployment of radioactive emitters in the US - every US citizen should have the "right" to that information if the company has an online portal - like email - to communicate with the Government?   Boeing has a private "portal" to the US Government to build military aircraft.  Since they have a "portal" they are a State Actor and now every US citizen has the right to know what top-secret warhead they are developing for the new stealth bomber.  That sounds right to you?  A portal is enough to justify State Actor requirements on a private company?



"Moreover, the federal government has a legal obligation to protect fair and free elections."

 I agree, but that does not mean you have the "right" to use Twitter or any other company's private property.  Government misconduct does not give you rights to the private property they used to do it.

I didn't say I had the 'right', my position is they are a state actor.

 And if they are a State Actor then they have an obligation to protect your 1st Amendment rights, not from the government in exclusivity, but upon their own actions.  This means you get to sue Twitter for violating your first Amendment rights when they ban you from using their property because that is the only way they can protect your 1st Amendment in this course of actions.

 If you don't have the right to use it, then they can't be a State Actor.

"In United States constitutional law, a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore subject to limitations imposed on government by the United States Constitution, including the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments"

 That underlined part means they can't ban you from their services.

 Nothing about this implicates Twitter for violating First Amendment rights.  If anything they falsely advertised, or are colluding with the Government to alter an election.

"It has been clearly established there was collusion. Combined with fb and youtube, it was likely material enough to alter the election."

 Agreed.  This is no different than communication on paper and radio 50 years ago, its just more effective now.  

 
"Do you believe people's rights were not violated in some capacity?  I'm not referring to the users of the social media.  How about the people who support free and fair elections?"

 I think in some capacity the potential exists.  My observations on "free and fair" elections regarding process is what that usually means is my guy should win and the other guy should lose.