For a long time, I've made the argument that the First and Second Amendments of the US Constitution are indistinguishable from each other. Previously, when the

For a long time, I've made the argument that the First and Second Amendments of the US Constitution are indistinguishable from each other. Previously, when the government was attacking encryption, I made the argument that this was gun control for software. "What you have is too powerful. No one needs 'military grade' encryption. Some people are misusing it, and we need the government to control it. No one's coming for your encryption, we just want key escrow." Of course, encryption is not only a protection for banking, it's a protection for free speech. I agree that words can be a "weapon"--but in the same way that a scalpel can be a weapon. It depends how you use it. It's frightening that people are now starting to apply the "gun control" thought process to "retweets". Before anyone jumps down my throat with "but Twitter isn't bound by the constitution", no duh. But regardless whether it's a company or a government, hearing someone with a lot of power advocate for suppressing freedom of expression isn't a great thing. Whatever happened to the "Free Speech Wing" of the "Free Speech Party"?