3 ms·
Agree. People who pride themselves on being able to see fine distinctions and shades of gray, seem unable to comprehend that a virtual space, run by a private c
by rpiguy 6y ago
Agree. People who pride themselves on being able to see fine distinctions and shades of gray, seem unable to comprehend that a virtual space, run by a private company, which is itself running on partially publicly funded infrastructure is an entirely new thing.
The intent of the 1st Amendment applies most strongly to political and religious views. Liberals love it when the 1st Amendment is used to defend communism, terrorists, or profane art. If Communists and Antifa were being squashed by Twitter, they'd be playing victim.
- mempko 6y ago> private company, which is itself running on partially publicly funded infrastructure is an entirely new thing. This is entirely and old thing. Every private company runs on publicly funded infrastructure. Roads, sewers, etc...
- uberman 6y agoFirst amendment claims with respect to those things you state are loved by liberals are almost certainly to stop government censorship. That is after all what the First Amendment is about. There is no applicability of the First Amendment with respect to what a private company may censor. This is why Trump may talk about "freedom" but his executive order will not be grounded on any First Amendment claim. Rather, Trump will essentially force the interpretation that CDA 230 should only apply to "politically neutral" actors. The result will be that social media companies will not be able to "censor" content that might be political. Again, not because of the Bill of Rights but because the liability shield provided by CDA 230. The practical result will be that all content that is not clearly illegal (and potentially content that is) will be fair game and unable to be censored as any censorship will risk a claim against political neutrality and jeopardize CDA 230 protection.