3 ms·

ACLU: “Elon Musk's Decision to Re-Platform President Trump Is the Right Call”

17 points by mhb 5y ago

Vladimof 5y ago
Companies are kings... not Presidents...
uejfiweun 5y ago
Haha, guess the attack article by the Atlantic this week must have scared some of the higher ups of the ACLU.
- johng 5y ago
  I hadn't seen the article yet. I just read it. Wonderful piece. Thank you.
cato_the_elder 5y ago
This was their spineless statement about it when it mattered: https://mobile.twitter.com/kimzetter/status/1347734205430591490 https://mobile.twitter.com/kimzetter/status/1347734205430591... Now that the tide has turned, it doesn't really matter what ACLU says or does.
conz 5y ago
- bl0rg 5y ago
  Of course. How is this relevant to whether it's "right" or not?
  - conz 5y ago
- cato_the_elder 5y ago
  > This seems to be a point lost on so many people. No, this is just a trite straw man repeated every single time free speech comes up.
  - conz 5y ago
    > No, this is just a trite straw man repeated every single time free speech comes up. It is no strawman argument but fundamental to the argument about free speech. Forcing a publisher (Twitter) to publish content is as bad as forcing a publisher to not publish content. Free speech demands that Twitter be allowed to publish what it wants.
    - Ekaros 5y ago
      On other hand if Twitter is publisher and control what is published. They should be held responsible both criminally and financially of everything they allow to be published on their platform. Seems entirely fair and reasonable? And not in anyway against their free speech. All speech there is theirs. Be it inciting violence or illegal graphical material. Some gets past their censor they are responsible also.
      - conz 5y ago
        > On other hand if Twitter is publisher and control what is published. They should be held responsible both criminally and financially of everything they allow to be published on their platform. It's fair that Twitter should be held accountable per US legislation, which is covered by Section 230: > Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code enacted as part of the United States Communications Decency Act, that generally provides immunity for website platforms with respect to third-party content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
    - conz 5y ago
      Further to this and in news just at hand: > "HB 20’s critics have blasted it for infringing on the First Amendment rights of private companies. “Texas’s law violates the First Amendment because it compels social media companies to publish speech they don’t want to publish. Worse, the theory of the First Amendment that Texas is advancing in this case would give government broad power to censor and distort public discourse,” said Scott Wilkens, senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute, in a statement following the decision." https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/11/23067002/texas-netchoice-paxton-hb20-social-media-law-fifth-circuit-appeals-court-grant-stay-ruling https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/11/23067002/texas-netchoice-...

17 points by mhb 5y ago

Vladimof 5y ago

Companies are kings... not Presidents...

uejfiweun 5y ago

Haha, guess the attack article by the Atlantic this week must have scared some of the higher ups of the ACLU.

johng 5y ago
I hadn't seen the article yet. I just read it. Wonderful piece. Thank you.

cato_the_elder 5y ago

This was their spineless statement about it when it mattered: https://mobile.twitter.com/kimzetter/status/1347734205430591490 https://mobile.twitter.com/kimzetter/status/1347734205430591... Now that the tide has turned, it doesn't really matter what ACLU says or does.

conz 5y ago

bl0rg 5y ago
Of course. How is this relevant to whether it's "right" or not?
- conz 5y ago
cato_the_elder 5y ago
> This seems to be a point lost on so many people. No, this is just a trite straw man repeated every single time free speech comes up.
- conz 5y ago
  > No, this is just a trite straw man repeated every single time free speech comes up. It is no strawman argument but fundamental to the argument about free speech. Forcing a publisher (Twitter) to publish content is as bad as forcing a publisher to not publish content. Free speech demands that Twitter be allowed to publish what it wants.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    On other hand if Twitter is publisher and control what is published. They should be held responsible both criminally and financially of everything they allow to be published on their platform. Seems entirely fair and reasonable? And not in anyway against their free speech. All speech there is theirs. Be it inciting violence or illegal graphical material. Some gets past their censor they are responsible also.
    - conz 5y ago
      > On other hand if Twitter is publisher and control what is published. They should be held responsible both criminally and financially of everything they allow to be published on their platform. It's fair that Twitter should be held accountable per US legislation, which is covered by Section 230: > Section 230 is a section of Title 47 of the United States Code enacted as part of the United States Communications Decency Act, that generally provides immunity for website platforms with respect to third-party content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
  - conz 5y ago
    Further to this and in news just at hand: > "HB 20’s critics have blasted it for infringing on the First Amendment rights of private companies. “Texas’s law violates the First Amendment because it compels social media companies to publish speech they don’t want to publish. Worse, the theory of the First Amendment that Texas is advancing in this case would give government broad power to censor and distort public discourse,” said Scott Wilkens, senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute, in a statement following the decision." https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/11/23067002/texas-netchoice-paxton-hb20-social-media-law-fifth-circuit-appeals-court-grant-stay-ruling https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/11/23067002/texas-netchoice-...