What is the difference between the public square and a private business, or are they the same?

MichaelElpers

@jack

Twitter isnt a public company, so its not a public square.

jack

MichaelElpers said:

@jack

Twitter isnt a public company, so its not a public square.

Hello again, M,

Nahhh..  Buzzz..  Wrong..  While it's true that Twitter is a privately held company, it would REMAIN a private company even if it sold off all it's shares..

I'm not sure you're clear about the distinctions between the public square and a private company..

Wanna take another shot at it?

excon

John_C_87

@jack

Public square? Public property is not a listed property to file verbal grievance like our Independence Mall. What we can by United States Constitutional Right is disclose on public property the better connection to established justice which is not given to us simply by making a claim verbally that we as people are use freedom of speech. Jack, you continue to backtrack on this issue as the 1st Amendment has an impasse created by a malpractice of law that must be solved in an Armed Services Court of law and lawyers have made it impossible to address in a connection to stablished justice by filed grievance in Federal and State Courts.

In the United State held by the First Amendment there is a described distance between freedom and filed grievance by wording that described path a person, or person plus the people travel between when speaking and not speaking openly at liberty. The ideal legal situation connecting law to established justice would have upheld this united state set in the state of the union described by the First Amendment. However, what we are waiting on from Executive officers 42, 43, 44, 45, or even 46, plus any man at this point who is acting as President of the United States of America is response. The response is a common defense to the general welfare of “we the people.” How is the united state held by righteous by law when a restriction of law is made against filling grievance of crime in a court of law. The common defense to the general welfare being that crimes of perjury and treason of political legislators for the most part would end in the relief of command and discharge of service.

Realistically a President is a man who speaks on behalf of only all men as a united State before the United States Constitution by what was legal precedent obstructed by unconstitutional right ratified by the people as Constitutional right regardless of a state of the union made in writing between truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth. Just as by state of the union set beteen truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth a women is bound by the same form of equal legal precedent by describing her as Presadera. 

 There is a high level of legal misdirection taking place and a great deal of the argument is over the direction of leadership in understanding the difference between liberty and freedom. The misdirection in speech also set by this flawed connection to whole truth is along the lines of argument between what is the true cause of Civil War, was it slavery or was it the creation of one Federal Reserve Note system payable on all debt? I find it impossible to believe it was the end of slavery when slavery has been ratified into the American United States Constitution, meaning it is there in writing to exist and it is described as how it is to exist clearly. How many “State Reserve Note” have we seen in print before the Civil War? How many do you see after the American Civil War?

jack

John_C_87 said:

@jack ;

How many “State Reserve Note” have we seen in print before the Civil War? How many do you see after the American Civil War?

Hello John:

I dunno..  I don't hold paper..  But, I agree with everything you said

excon

John_C_87

@jack

I think what I am trying to say Jack is we have been duped....
to undo the SNAFU reinstate the legal precedent of President of the United States of America and include women by their constitutional right as a state of the union made by Presadera and let impeachment work as it was originally intended too.

“All men and all women are created equal by their creator and not by any differences between each other and thier own creations.”

( Whole Truth, nothing but truth)

jack

John_C_87 said:

@jack

I think what I am trying to say Jack is we have been duped....

Hello again, John.. 

I agree.  We have a lot of work to do.

excon

John_C_87

lol..............
What we........... Im to bizzy not working on my Masters Degree at being a bum.......

MayCaesar

A public square is just an area anyone is free to enter and do business on. A private company space can function as a public square in case the company chooses to make it so, but it cannot ne assumed to be such by default any more than your house can.

People are confused about this due to lack of understanding of the hierarchy of the entities in question. "Private property" is the overarching concept referring to anything an individual owns, implying his right to use it for any non-violent purposes. Doing business is one such purpose, but so is using it as a living space. From the legal standpoint, a piece of private property that is used as someone's personal residence is the same as a piece used as someone's source of monetary profit, and the distinction is merely in function, not in nature. Much like playing poker for fun and playing poker for money is functionally different (i.e. produces different outcomes), but you are laying the same game fundamentally in both cases. The legal distinction between the two merely implies that there is no actual private property in any of the modern systems, although a lot of the property has certain private property elements.

There is zero reason to consider Twitter a "public square". If I open my house to everyone and allow everyone to walk in and say whatever they want, it will still be my house, and at any point in time I will be able to say, "The party is over, folks. Clear out". If someone then refuses to leave and says thay, due to how popular and influential my house has become, it now should be run by the public - he will be arrested for tresspassing. Exactly the same reasoning applies to Twitter owners: it is their property, and even if 99.999% of all things people ever post in the future are posted there, it is still going to be their property. They will just have done a fantastic job capitalizing on it. 

MichaelElpers

@jack

What in my statement had anything to do with them potentially selling the company?

If they sold their shares to a public entity like the u.s. governemnt it would be a public space.

If they sell to Elon Musk for example he has control as a private individual.

John_C_87

A public square is just an area anyone is free to enter and do business on.
This is in no way true...

I must add that Posted Private Property is the term you should use as private property is simply a general notice to people who may be viewed as trespassers when in reading distance of a private property sign.