3 ms·

I guess the main question is, are we having a legal or moral conversation? Because when you're discussing law- which I think is the vastly more important aspec

I guess the main question is, are we having a legal or moral conversation? Because when you're discussing law- which I think is the vastly more important aspect here- these aren't technicalities. I don't believe there's a thing called "the spirit of the First Amendment". There's just the First Amendment, and how the courts have enforced it and are likely to continue enforcing it. I don't think it would be a 1A violation if he did it in office- in fact, Taibbi's thread says the Trump admin did the same thing, and I don't think that's a 1A violation (legally) either.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ALittleLight 4y ago
I think you have it exactly backwards. The technicalities of the law are meaningless - morality is what's important. We created the law to codify morals, and, to the extent that it is good to follow the law, it is good only to the extent that the law agrees with morality. And, of course, it's a moot point anyway because Taibi says requests came, and were honored, from both sides, including the White House. Even if "Joe Biden wasn't President yet" is true, Trump was President and his White House was working with Twitter to suppress speech. I just don't see how it is a question, either legally or morally, that the Federal Government, with Twitter, has been violating the first amendment.
- anoonmoose 4y ago
  Again, at the end, you conflate things. I don't feel the need to discuss morality, I find that boring. But legally? It's just strictly not a 1A violation with the info we have now. Twitter can take down whatever they want, it's their website. If I ask, it's not a 1A violation. If Joe Biden in 2020 asks, it's not a 1A violation. If Trump in 2020 asked, it's not a 1A violation (unless Twitter feels like they were forced, which they haven't claimed).
  - sheusndudn 4y ago
  - cozos 4y ago
    Just because you don't feel the need the discuss morality doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't? For some of us the "spirit of the constitution" is just as important. And IMO if you're into this whole liberalism thing and you don't think it's important then you're just being dishonest. What you see is a non-government person asking a non-government business to censor something. What I see is a former Vice President, Congressman, and Presidential candidate, backed by the DNC, asking a major communications channel to censor something. The former sounds like sophistry to me.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ALittleLight 4y ago

I think you have it exactly backwards. The technicalities of the law are meaningless - morality is what's important. We created the law to codify morals, and, to the extent that it is good to follow the law, it is good only to the extent that the law agrees with morality. And, of course, it's a moot point anyway because Taibi says requests came, and were honored, from both sides, including the White House. Even if "Joe Biden wasn't President yet" is true, Trump was President and his White House was working with Twitter to suppress speech. I just don't see how it is a question, either legally or morally, that the Federal Government, with Twitter, has been violating the first amendment.

anoonmoose 4y ago
Again, at the end, you conflate things. I don't feel the need to discuss morality, I find that boring. But legally? It's just strictly not a 1A violation with the info we have now. Twitter can take down whatever they want, it's their website. If I ask, it's not a 1A violation. If Joe Biden in 2020 asks, it's not a 1A violation. If Trump in 2020 asked, it's not a 1A violation (unless Twitter feels like they were forced, which they haven't claimed).
- sheusndudn 4y ago
- cozos 4y ago
  Just because you don't feel the need the discuss morality doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't? For some of us the "spirit of the constitution" is just as important. And IMO if you're into this whole liberalism thing and you don't think it's important then you're just being dishonest. What you see is a non-government person asking a non-government business to censor something. What I see is a former Vice President, Congressman, and Presidential candidate, backed by the DNC, asking a major communications channel to censor something. The former sounds like sophistry to me.