4 ms·
Stop posting this. It is wrong. Read this first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27762145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27762145 Page 35: > “Requi
by temp8964 5y ago
Stop posting this. It is wrong. Read this first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27762145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27762145
Page 35:
> “Requiring someone to host another person’s speech is often a perfectly legitimate thing for the Government to do.” So wrote Justice Breyer, and the cases he
cited (PruneYard and Rumsfeld), as well as Turner, fully support that view. PruneYard expressly rejected the claim “that a private property owner has a First Amendment right not to be forced by the State to use his property as a forum for the speech of others.” Turner and Rumsfeld rejected similar claims.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago> Stop posting this. It is wrong. It may be wrong but it sure feels good to post a cartoon as a snarky response rather than having a reasoned discussion.
- jwalgenbach 5y agoUnless Trump is challenging the terms of service that he had to agree to when getting his account, this is largely a non-issue. Trump _agreed_ that Facebook/Twitter could ban him whenever he crossed their usage policy, which they can alter at any time. Essentially, Trump agreed that they had the right to ban him before he posted anything to their services. So sure, the government may be able to force people to host things they don't want to, but I don't think the government will force anybody to break a contract that both parties agreed to in this case.