3 ms·
It's specifically talking about the government. In this case, it was the government doing the censorship so first amendment applies.
by machina_ex_deus 4y ago
It's specifically talking about the government. In this case, it was the government doing the censorship so first amendment applies.
- fazfq 4y agoIt's not the government doing the censorship if the private site can choose to refuse. In this case both were in cahoots, but that was (is?) Twitter's prerogative.
- ethanbond 4y agoNo, the government is requesting something to be taken down. Short of the exceptions mentioned up above, the platforms are not obligated whatsoever to follow those requests.
- jtc331 4y agoMy understanding is that there is already court precedent that the government can’t do this (use private companies to do their censorship even if it’s not strictly guaranteed to happen).
- gsibble 4y agoThere is, even if the companies can refuse. The government cannot ask companies to censor something. This is a direct violation of the first amendment.
- ethanbond 4y agoNews to me. What case established it? I would be pretty surprised if this was true but 3rd Party Doctrine is in good standing in 99% of cases. Edit: Yeah, it appears this is not true at all. The government of course cannot coerce a private company to do this (which is obvious since that'd be tantamount to the government itself doing the censorship), but they absolutely can request it. 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...