5 ms·

Hmm.. That makes me wonder. Do "free speech" rights apply when it's not your speech? I mean, Twitter is not an editor, whatever it publishes is not its speech,

by Udik 6y ago

Hmm.. That makes me wonder. Do "free speech" rights apply when it's not your speech? I mean, Twitter is not an editor, whatever it publishes is not its speech, it's someone else's.

mc32 6y ago
Yeah it’s as if they’re saying that indeed they agree with all the Tweets they don’t moderate since it’s “their speech”.
- jasonv 6y ago
  No. They can agree, not agree, have no opinion, have no consideration, not even see. They can also take the position that some things they really, really can't abide.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Yeah it’s as if they’re saying that indeed they agree with all the Tweets they don’t moderate Nope, publishers often (sometimes with explicit notice to avoid doubt) publish things they disagree with because they think there is value in publishing it. They often also exercise their free speech/press rights to not publish other things they disagree with, even if they are submitted to them for publication.
andrewprock 6y ago
That's where things are getting confused. Anything Twitter publishes is 100% their speech, and they have a free speech right to say what they like, and not say what they don't like.
- mc32 6y ago
  ? So if someone gets defamed (me too entanglement) by someone else via Twitter it’s on Twitter and not the actual person who defamed the other?
  - andrewprock 6y ago
    Both the author and the publisher are responsible.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > So if someone gets defamed (me too entanglement) by someone else via Twitter it’s on Twitter and not the actual person who defamed the other? It would be, except for Section 230’s explicitly carveout of most civil liability as a publisher for online publishers (whether other users or platform operators) to the extent they are moderating/curating user-generated content, rather than producing/submitting content.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> That makes me wonder. Do "free speech" rights apply when it's not your speech? The act of choosing to use (or not use) ones resources to relay speech is, yes, an act of free speech (or perhaps more precisely free press, though the two are generally treated as a single right under the name “speech” for most purpose). > Twitter is not an editor It is, except for some civil liability purposes because of the specific Section 230 carveout for curated/moderated content which is user generated, a publisher. The choice to publish content, or not, is a speech/press act.

by Udik 6y ago

Hmm.. That makes me wonder. Do "free speech" rights apply when it's not your speech? I mean, Twitter is not an editor, whatever it publishes is not its speech, it's someone else's.

mc32 6y ago

Yeah it’s as if they’re saying that indeed they agree with all the Tweets they don’t moderate since it’s “their speech”.

jasonv 6y ago
No. They can agree, not agree, have no opinion, have no consideration, not even see. They can also take the position that some things they really, really can't abide.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Yeah it’s as if they’re saying that indeed they agree with all the Tweets they don’t moderate Nope, publishers often (sometimes with explicit notice to avoid doubt) publish things they disagree with because they think there is value in publishing it. They often also exercise their free speech/press rights to not publish other things they disagree with, even if they are submitted to them for publication.

andrewprock 6y ago

That's where things are getting confused. Anything Twitter publishes is 100% their speech, and they have a free speech right to say what they like, and not say what they don't like.

mc32 6y ago
? So if someone gets defamed (me too entanglement) by someone else via Twitter it’s on Twitter and not the actual person who defamed the other?
- andrewprock 6y ago
  Both the author and the publisher are responsible.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > So if someone gets defamed (me too entanglement) by someone else via Twitter it’s on Twitter and not the actual person who defamed the other? It would be, except for Section 230’s explicitly carveout of most civil liability as a publisher for online publishers (whether other users or platform operators) to the extent they are moderating/curating user-generated content, rather than producing/submitting content.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> That makes me wonder. Do "free speech" rights apply when it's not your speech? The act of choosing to use (or not use) ones resources to relay speech is, yes, an act of free speech (or perhaps more precisely free press, though the two are generally treated as a single right under the name “speech” for most purpose). > Twitter is not an editor It is, except for some civil liability purposes because of the specific Section 230 carveout for curated/moderated content which is user generated, a publisher. The choice to publish content, or not, is a speech/press act.