4 ms·
That's the wrong discussion to have. What's unacceptable is that a platform in a free speech country edits speech to conform to an authority it doesn't have.
by sebastianconcpt 5y ago
That's the wrong discussion to have. What's unacceptable is that a platform in a free speech country edits speech to conform to an authority it doesn't have.
- flyingcircus3 5y agoThis article is about a private company enforcing rules on its own website. Freedom of speech is specifically protecting people from the _government_ preventing their speech. But you knew that already.
- sebastianconcpt 5y agoThe tone of your last sentence is not compatible with you apparent lack of information (best case) or omission (worst case) about these companies juridically categorizing themselves as platforms, as opposed to publishers, so they are not just "their website enforcing its own rules"? [1] [1] While the First Amendment generally does not apply to private companies, the Supreme Court has held it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.” which is precisely what they are obscenely doing. https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html?wallit_nosession=1 https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588...