6 ms·
> You could require freedom of speech apply to industry leaders for example. What does this mean? Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Jeff Bezos, et al already have
by kevinmchugh 8y ago
> You could require freedom of speech apply to industry leaders for example.
What does this mean? Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Jeff Bezos, et al already have their constitutionally protected speech, except for where their roles as executives at public companies restrict them. If they find those restrictions onerous they can leave their roles.
- dEnigma 8y agoI think they meant requiring industry-leading companies to apply freedom of speech on their platforms. That is, no censoring of comments, videos, reviews, etc. as long as they don't violate the law.
- kevinmchugh 8y agoSo the idea is to "require freedom of speech to apply" by prohibiting corporations from setting their own terms of service, spam policies, etc? That sounds like a very serious restraint of speech.
- apcragg 8y agoThe government cannot compel speech. I don't think that using the power of the government to require some types of speech against the wishes of private entities solves the problem you think it's solving...
- dEnigma 8y agoTo clarify: I was just explaining what the above commenter meant, not stating my own opinion on the matter.
- sleepysysadmin 8y agoIf Twitter decides tomorrow to ban the right-wing from their platform. They absolutely legally can. If you watch the recent Joe Rogan video with Tim Pool and Jack Dorsey. They didn't realize they were slowly banning the right-wing and allowing left-wing terrorists to stay on Twitter. They absolutely didn't realize they were doing this and they are going to look at fixing this. The government however could come in and simply make it that you have freedom of speech on social media. So if Twitter bans someone for saying "a man cannot be a woman" that person can sue them. The democrats will NOT do this however, the current censorship on social media is benefiting the left-wing.
- kevinmchugh 8y agoThe company twitter has set its terms of service. That is speech. What you're suggesting is eliminating the corporation's ability to do speak in that manner. Do you believe the US government has the ability to simply prohibit speech by corporate entities? Is it in accordance with free speech principles for a federal government to prohibit certain types of speech?
- sleepysysadmin 8y agoBy forcing freedom of speech onto twitter for example. I don't see how that would be restricting their speech. Personally I see this as something that will come eventually. However, I don't think that's what Twitter should do. My idea is that twitter should act more like the united nations. You create a 'diplomatic immunity' type of account that people can request. It can be something like: Minimum 50,000 followers. Account history of 1 year. If approved you can no longer edit or delete your posts; but you also cant be kicked off twitter or other be harmed by rules of twitter. this by itself will solve the problem that twitter has.
- smadge 8y agoI don't think terms of service, basically a contract, fall under free speech. If you and I make a verbal contract that you will assassinate someone we are still breaking the law because assassinations are illegal. Our free speech isn't being violated when we are arrested for doing something illegal.