3 ms·
>When they arranged a contact at social media giants to whom they can report content to be removed. What does arranging the contact have to do with it? The gov
by freejazz 4y ago
>When they arranged a contact at social media giants to whom they can report content to be removed.
What does arranging the contact have to do with it? The government has long identified speech it disagrees with and I'm really hard pressed to believe you think this is something the government can't do?
>All government actors are subject to the constitution and criminal and civil statutes. If they violate them, they can be charged even in the absence of a statute that says they can commit said violation. See Derek Chauvin and the other officers who recently were convicted of violating George Floyd's civil rights.
Oh, I thought you were saying this empowers them to.
- wang_li 4y ago>What does arranging the contact have to do with it? The government has long identified speech it disagrees with and I'm really hard pressed to believe you think this is something the government can't do? It shows collusion. The government saying so and so said something we disagree with is fine. The government working hand in hand with a third party to prevent someone from speaking is no different than the government stopping the speech directly.
- freejazz 4y agoI'm positive that emailing that list to someone does not make it a violation of the first amendment. There's nothing secret or illegal about it either, so I don't think collusion is the word you are looking for. Now an agreement between Twitter and the executive branch, that Twitter would do everything asked of them would maybe make your point. Of course, that's exactly what's missing.