4 ms·

If 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 Ja

If 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 ago
The 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 ago
  By 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 ago
  I 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.

kevinmchugh 8y ago

The 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 ago
By 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 ago
I 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.