# Resolved that Twitter can legally boot you for any reason, other than membership in a protected class **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 20, 2021, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-that-twitter-can-legally-boot-you-for-any-reason-other-than-membership-in-a-protected-class/930929 "2021-01-20T00:57:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 57
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2021, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-that-twitter-can-legally-boot-you-for-any-reason-other-than-membership-in-a-protected-class/930929/57 "2021-01-21T16:04:11Z")
One of the two OPs was this one > [@Are social media's recent bannings a freedom of expression issue?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-social-medias-recent-bannings-a-freedom-of-expression-issue/930330/36): > > A recent closed thread asked if it was a first Amendment violation. It is not. But one poster in the thread raised the issue of whether it might be an oligopoly issue. In a world in which a very few companies, and in fact a very few individual executives, control the soapboxes of the public square, should there be some consideration to that power by a very few, that it not be applied capriciously? Case made by Russian dissident and assassination attempt survivor Alexey Navalny. Neither is Me… It indeed was asking the question. The specific impetus was Navalny’s take. The concern from a dissident’s perspective. His awareness of how autocrats accomplish control over the public square with powerful private companies as their wink wink nudge nudge accomplices. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/resolved-that-twitter-can-legally-boot-you-for-any-reason-other-than-membership-in-a-protected-class/930929)._