If Twitter receives a substantial funding from the government, which will likely create an entanglement, or if it were to be a government entity, which performs a government function, its action, permanently banning Trump from its platform, would have triggered Trump’s Fifth and First Amendment rights (to some extent, the Fourteenth Amendment). The 5th Amendment would have been triggered because he would have claimed that Twitter violated the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, arguing that Twitter's action deprived him of substantive and procedural rights (adequate notice and fair hearing). He probably would have asserted a violation of the First Amendment, too, but that would be a stretch, as incitement speeches are not protected under the First Amendment. His best argument, however, resides in the 14th Amendment: he can assert that Twitter treated him differently from similarly situated people (think of Ayatollah, North Korean Kim Jong Un, and other political arsonists, who constantly incite violence on Twitter, but they are deemed newsworthy). The 14th Amendment states, inter alia, that no two similarly situated can be treated differently. Here is the problem, though: since Twitter is a PRIVATE entity (NOT a PUBLIC entity), it might argue that Trump's rights were not violated, asserting correctly that it is a PRIVILEGE to use its platform, and, as a PRIVATE entity, it can REGULATE FREE SPEECH that otherwise would have triggered a STRICT SCRUTINY review if it were a GOVERNMENT ENTITY. Do you have any objection?
