4 ms·

Twitter does not—and cannot—violate first amendment rights, since it is not the US government.

salawat 6y ago
There is a certain point whereafter I end up doubting the normative value that most ascribe to coming out of the 1st Amendment; that being the concept that if the government can't do it, we probably shouldn't be doing it to each other willy nilly under the guise of private enterprise either, as aftera certain point, the lines between enterprise and government blur together as to become nigh-inseperable.
- smt88 6y ago
  You can say that you disagree with Twitter's moderation choices if you want. That has nothing to do with this lawsuit. The lawsuit is saying that the Texas government is abusing its power to pressure Twitter to publish, distribute, and tacitly endorse things that Twitter has chosen not to. That's exactly what the First Amendment is intending to stop. > the concept that if the government can't do it, we probably shouldn't be doing it to each other The government's behavior is more restricted because it has a monopoly on many types of power (law creation and enforcement, for example). The purpose of the First Amendment is to stop the government from abusing its monopoly powers to oppress people. Otherwise, we couldn't trust the government with those powers in the first place. Private corporations like Twitter don't have the power to broadly suppress speech in the first place. They can't, for example, censor the New York Times or Joe Rogan's podcast. They can only decide what they publish.
  - selfhoster11 6y ago
    > The government's behavior is more restricted because it has a monopoly on many types of power (law creation and enforcement, for example) You mention monopolies, yet don't point out that Twitter essentially has a monopoly in its niche. This to me sounds like it should be regulated to include aspects of 1A.
    - smt88 6y ago
      "Twitter has a monopoly in its niche" is totally indefensible with any evidence. They're much, much smaller than Facebook and Instagram, for starters. They're not even the biggest social network! And then if you include all the other ways to publish an announcement (press releases, interviews with journalists, your own blog, etc.) there are dozens or hundreds of other important channels.
- salawat 6y ago
  God... That's an unfortunate auto correct. s/end up/stop Should read "stop doubting the normative value"

There is a certain point whereafter I end up doubting the normative value that most ascribe to coming out of the 1st Amendment; that being the concept that if the government can't do it, we probably shouldn't be doing it to each other willy nilly under the guise of private enterprise either, as aftera certain point, the lines between enterprise and government blur together as to become nigh-inseperable.

smt88 6y ago
You can say that you disagree with Twitter's moderation choices if you want. That has nothing to do with this lawsuit. The lawsuit is saying that the Texas government is abusing its power to pressure Twitter to publish, distribute, and tacitly endorse things that Twitter has chosen not to. That's exactly what the First Amendment is intending to stop. > the concept that if the government can't do it, we probably shouldn't be doing it to each other The government's behavior is more restricted because it has a monopoly on many types of power (law creation and enforcement, for example). The purpose of the First Amendment is to stop the government from abusing its monopoly powers to oppress people. Otherwise, we couldn't trust the government with those powers in the first place. Private corporations like Twitter don't have the power to broadly suppress speech in the first place. They can't, for example, censor the New York Times or Joe Rogan's podcast. They can only decide what they publish.
- selfhoster11 6y ago
  > The government's behavior is more restricted because it has a monopoly on many types of power (law creation and enforcement, for example) You mention monopolies, yet don't point out that Twitter essentially has a monopoly in its niche. This to me sounds like it should be regulated to include aspects of 1A.
  - smt88 6y ago
    "Twitter has a monopoly in its niche" is totally indefensible with any evidence. They're much, much smaller than Facebook and Instagram, for starters. They're not even the biggest social network! And then if you include all the other ways to publish an announcement (press releases, interviews with journalists, your own blog, etc.) there are dozens or hundreds of other important channels.
salawat 6y ago
God... That's an unfortunate auto correct. s/end up/stop Should read "stop doubting the normative value"