3 ms·
That may be true, but why is that a good thing? Would it not be better for users, if private platforms also provided the same free speech guarantee that the gov
by publicola1990 6y ago
That may be true, but why is that a good thing? Would it not be better for users, if private platforms also provided the same free speech guarantee that the government is obliged to give.
- krapp 6y ago>Would it not be better for users, if private platforms also provided the same free speech guarantee that the government is obliged to give. No, because forcing social media platforms to publish speech they object to would infringe upon the free speech and free association rights of those platform owners. Twitter has the right to decide what it will and will not allow on its platform, and it has the right to change the rules as it sees fit. And I guarantee that everyone with an account had to agree to terms of service to that effect. And no, just in case this comes up, Twitter doing so does not mean they somehow stop becoming a "platform" and become a "publisher" and should lose Section 230 protection. That's not how Section 230 works, and the distinction between platform and publisher commonly used in these arguments doesn't really exist in a legal sense - Twitter is allowed to moderate their platform beyond merely removing illegal content, and can even express political bias in doing so - while remaining not liable for user supplied content.
- kgwxd 6y agoI think it's more accurate to view the first amendment as a limit on government, not as a fundamental right the government gives to all people, in all circumstances.