4 ms·
The intent of the first amendment is to give individuals the freedom to express their thoughts freely, without any legal repercussions. It's a universal human r
by off_sounder 4y ago
The intent of the first amendment is to give individuals the freedom to express their thoughts freely, without any legal repercussions. It's a universal human right, and its implementation into law is irrelevant to any philosophical discussion on morals.
That right has brought freedom and prosperity everywhere it's been implemented with minimal restrictions.
Twitter has become a public platform/forum/news outlet at this point. It's hard for anyone to argue with that, since people go there to get their news and to hear what prominent figures have to say.
Regardless of all that, shouldn't we be insisting that American companies retain core American values? The market can't select for those values since Twitter has no direct competitors, which makes the case for it being a platform even stronger.
- bediger4000 4y agoYou got it correct with "legal repercussions". Getting banned for TOS violations is hardly a legal repercussion, it's just someone exercising property rights. Nobody should have to pay for someone else's speech, good, bad or indifferent. Lack of legal repercussions is also not lack of social repercussions. Maybe we should be insisting on American companies retaining core American values, but that's not the legal environment they operate in, which is one of "fiduciary duty" only.