Let's set aside Twitter itself for a moment, because I have personally despised it from its inception and think the world would have been better off if it had never existed. I am, to use a popular neologism, triggered by Twitter. However, the thought experiment itself remains valuable. Suppose the United States federal government provided a one-to-many digital messaging service; a modern-day telegraph under the portfolio of a cabinet-level Secretary of Communication. Censorship of this platform would have been a clear violation of the First Amendment, and would end up decided over a series of Supreme Court cases. The Court would attempt to map existing jurisprudence to the medium and try to balance its usefulness against potential harm done by idiots. How exactly that would shake out, I cannot predict. It seems likely that, when run by the justices of the Court, it would be a more intelligent and nuanced debate than the one run by activists inside tech companies. Or by keyboard warriors on (soon-to-be-regulated) forum sites. From the legislative side, a repeal of the First Amendment is certainly not out of the question (in fact, I consider it fairly likely, along with a repeal of the Second and possibly the Fourth, within the next 10-20 years, provided the United States survives in recognizable form that long).