4 ms·

> It's just a completely unbacked conspiracy theory. ...I had no theory at all. I was merely bringing up that the blanket statement of the first amendment not

> It's just a completely unbacked conspiracy theory. ...I had no theory at all. I was merely bringing up that the blanket statement of the first amendment not applying to Twitter is false. It can be debated in court under first amendment grounds. We have in this thread an interesting whiplash of "the 1st amendment must be protected!" and "Twitter is not bound by the first amendment" by the same people. I am doing the same, but am at least contextualizing how and where the first amendment applies to Twitter. Edit: The first amendment is a set of restrictions on what government can't restrict. Therefore, if the first amendment is applied to Twitter, it means the content not allowed to be restricted is Twitter's speech. This is how it works with newspapers and why they are liable. Twitter, is not saying this. They are, very directly in the text of this case, advocating for protecting their users' speech, not their own. But they do this selectively: they'll only allow government censorship when they feel like it Private organizations acting under threat of government action are liable and can be sued, threatened or not [1]. I have attached many cases where the Supreme Court has ruled in this way. [1] https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-private-entities-to-restrict-others-speech/ https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/19/when-government-urges-p...

lalaland1125 5y ago
It's not whiplash at all. Twitter isn't bound by the first amendment. Twitter is protected by it. If it came out that government was coercing Twitter to ban people, Twitter would be the victim there.
shkkmo 5y ago
You seem to have a profoundly distorted view of the law. The 1A places zero restrictions on what Twitter can do, only on what the government can do. If the government intimidates Twitter into censoring content, the government has violated the first amendment and can be taken to court for that. Twitter still has the right to censor how they please, regardless of whether goverent intimidation played any role in Twitter's motivations.
joshuamorton 5y ago
> Therefore, if the first amendment is applied to Twitter, it means the content not allowed to be restricted is Twitter's speech. If there exists a bulletin board in the community square, and I put a poster on it, it is still my speech even though it exists on the bulleting board. It is certainly not "the bulletin board's" speech. Twitter also mentions legal precedent that directly contradicts your claim here. Legally speaking, in the United States, my tweets are considered my speech, and not twitter's. > But they do this selectively: they'll only allow government censorship when they feel like it Yes, this is their right, as protected by the first amendment. Twitter is under no obligation to treat all users, content, etc. in the same way. They do not have to be impartial. They are allowed to treat certain users better than others (and they do, in all kinds of ways!).

lalaland1125 5y ago

It's not whiplash at all. Twitter isn't bound by the first amendment. Twitter is protected by it. If it came out that government was coercing Twitter to ban people, Twitter would be the victim there.

shkkmo 5y ago

You seem to have a profoundly distorted view of the law. The 1A places zero restrictions on what Twitter can do, only on what the government can do. If the government intimidates Twitter into censoring content, the government has violated the first amendment and can be taken to court for that. Twitter still has the right to censor how they please, regardless of whether goverent intimidation played any role in Twitter's motivations.

joshuamorton 5y ago

> Therefore, if the first amendment is applied to Twitter, it means the content not allowed to be restricted is Twitter's speech. If there exists a bulletin board in the community square, and I put a poster on it, it is still my speech even though it exists on the bulleting board. It is certainly not "the bulletin board's" speech. Twitter also mentions legal precedent that directly contradicts your claim here. Legally speaking, in the United States, my tweets are considered my speech, and not twitter's. > But they do this selectively: they'll only allow government censorship when they feel like it Yes, this is their right, as protected by the first amendment. Twitter is under no obligation to treat all users, content, etc. in the same way. They do not have to be impartial. They are allowed to treat certain users better than others (and they do, in all kinds of ways!).