3 ms·
Freedom of speech does not extend to private entities such as twitter.
by dawnerd 9y ago
Freedom of speech does not extend to private entities such as twitter.
- marcoperaza 9y ago>Freedom of speech does not extend to private entities such as twitter. I was responding specifically to this claim: >And if the President of the United States were to tweet something illegal? Shifting the goal posts mid conversation is incredibly dishonest. You can see my other replies on the larger thread for the reason why Twitter should not censor him, even though they legally could.
- withdavidli 9y agoIt does unless Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is outdated [0]. [0]https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission https://ballotpedia.org/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_...
- jakelazaroff 9y agoThat decision lifted a restriction preventing private entities from running political advertisements in certain situations. What people generally mean (and indeed, what dawnerd means here) when they say "freedom of speech does not extend to private entities” is that even if speech is legal, a private entity has no obligation to host or disseminate it.
- withdavidli 9y agoIs this a common phrase? I googled variations of it and only turned up less than 10 results. If that's what it means, then yes, I agree that private entities don't have to host it.
- jakelazaroff 9y agoNot necessarily that exact wording, but yes: in the U.S. at least, this has been a popular topic recently with regard to things like Donald Trump on Twitter, NFL players kneeling during the national anthem, Google's firing of James Damore, removal of white supremacist content from various services, etc.