5 ms·

No! And if it was, the party with standing to sue would be Twitter themselves, who has not said they're doing this.

Dem_Boys 4y ago
Interesting point! The white house in this case was the Trump white house so it could have been received positively by the media that twitter is standing up to Trump by suing. Could you elaborate on why you dont think it would be a free speech violation? Is internet communication not considered speech?
- anoonmoose 4y ago
  Internet communication is considered speech. But, the speech on Twitter's website belongs to Twitter. They get to decide what is on their website. They can, as far as the First Amendment goes, more or less ban or censor anything they want for any reason, because they are a private actor. If Twitter decided to remove Hunter Biden content completely on their own, that would be legal. If Twitter decided to remove that content because someone asked nicely- regardless of who that person is, whether they are President or not- that would be legal. It's only a legal issue if the government forces Twitter to remove the content, which is not something Twitter has asserted.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  In which case? The tweet says it was both White houses with obvious favoritism towardd Democrats.
Amezarak 4y ago
The ACLU disagrees. https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1587198479608303622 https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1587198479608303622 The government pressuring private companies to censor is a First Amendment violation.
- anoonmoose 4y ago
  Pressure would be a First Amendment violation. Twitter has not asserted they were pressured. If they feel they were, they should say so, and sue.
  - jtc331 4y ago
    What if Twitter agreed with the motivation for the pressure? Shouldn’t the government not be pressuring people in pursuit of limiting free speech whether the current recipients of the pressure happen to be of the same political persuasion or not? Otherwise what happens when the party in power changes?
    - anoonmoose 4y ago
      "What if Twitter agreed with the motivation for the pressure?" Then it's not pressure. It's Twitter doing something they want to do. Just because the government and Twitter agree on something doesn't mean the government "forced them" to do it, which is what the 1A and prior restraint law care about. "What happens when the party in power changes?" Twitter, like every other company, gets to decide whether or not they want to support or oppose the party in power, and if Twitter feels the government is violating their 1A rights, Twitter can sue them
  - we_never_see_it 4y ago
    > Twitter has not asserted they were pressured. If they feel they were, they should say so, and sue.' You do understand that they can collude? It's funny we have spent countless hours hearing about Trump Russia collusion. Now suddenly people can't seem to figure out there is a thing called collusion. Censorship of this story doesn't exist in vaccum. There is a legitimate argument why this shouldn't be investigated as election interference when we've spent countless hours based on Steele dossier, which turned out to be a political ploy.
    - epakai 4y ago
      For collusion to be noteworthy there still has to be a crime committed. The allegation in the Trump-Russia collusion case is that they conspired to have foreign operators influence the election. This would have been an illegal act that they colluded on. There is nothing illegal about requesting review of tweets even through special channels. If Twitter actually has evidence of an illegal act to coerce the review then they should probably rehire whoever was coerced and file suit.
bakugo 4y ago
As stated in tweet #11, Twitter is overwhemingly staffed by people of one political orientation, and the company as a whole would thus have no issue with helping their political party win the election. They had no reason to sue.
- anoonmoose 4y ago
  And that is completely legal and allowed under the First Amendment.
- dd36 4y ago
  See Fox News…
  - bakugo 4y ago
    What does fox news have to do with this?
    - dd36 4y ago
      A media company favoring a political party is not illegal. It’s indeed quite normal. That said, removing revenge porn isn’t favoring a political party.
      - pstuart 4y ago
        Fox does not "favor" the GOP. It is an instrument of the GOP.
        dd36 4y ago
        True. Same difference.
- archagon 4y ago
  > Twitter is overwhemingly staffed by people of one political orientation Where is this information coming from?

Interesting point! The white house in this case was the Trump white house so it could have been received positively by the media that twitter is standing up to Trump by suing. Could you elaborate on why you dont think it would be a free speech violation? Is internet communication not considered speech?

anoonmoose 4y ago
Internet communication is considered speech. But, the speech on Twitter's website belongs to Twitter. They get to decide what is on their website. They can, as far as the First Amendment goes, more or less ban or censor anything they want for any reason, because they are a private actor. If Twitter decided to remove Hunter Biden content completely on their own, that would be legal. If Twitter decided to remove that content because someone asked nicely- regardless of who that person is, whether they are President or not- that would be legal. It's only a legal issue if the government forces Twitter to remove the content, which is not something Twitter has asserted.
nonethewiser 4y ago
In which case? The tweet says it was both White houses with obvious favoritism towardd Democrats.

Amezarak 4y ago

The ACLU disagrees. https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1587198479608303622 https://twitter.com/aclu/status/1587198479608303622 The government pressuring private companies to censor is a First Amendment violation.

anoonmoose 4y ago
Pressure would be a First Amendment violation. Twitter has not asserted they were pressured. If they feel they were, they should say so, and sue.
- jtc331 4y ago
  What if Twitter agreed with the motivation for the pressure? Shouldn’t the government not be pressuring people in pursuit of limiting free speech whether the current recipients of the pressure happen to be of the same political persuasion or not? Otherwise what happens when the party in power changes?
  - anoonmoose 4y ago
    "What if Twitter agreed with the motivation for the pressure?" Then it's not pressure. It's Twitter doing something they want to do. Just because the government and Twitter agree on something doesn't mean the government "forced them" to do it, which is what the 1A and prior restraint law care about. "What happens when the party in power changes?" Twitter, like every other company, gets to decide whether or not they want to support or oppose the party in power, and if Twitter feels the government is violating their 1A rights, Twitter can sue them
- we_never_see_it 4y ago
  > Twitter has not asserted they were pressured. If they feel they were, they should say so, and sue.' You do understand that they can collude? It's funny we have spent countless hours hearing about Trump Russia collusion. Now suddenly people can't seem to figure out there is a thing called collusion. Censorship of this story doesn't exist in vaccum. There is a legitimate argument why this shouldn't be investigated as election interference when we've spent countless hours based on Steele dossier, which turned out to be a political ploy.
  - epakai 4y ago
    For collusion to be noteworthy there still has to be a crime committed. The allegation in the Trump-Russia collusion case is that they conspired to have foreign operators influence the election. This would have been an illegal act that they colluded on. There is nothing illegal about requesting review of tweets even through special channels. If Twitter actually has evidence of an illegal act to coerce the review then they should probably rehire whoever was coerced and file suit.

bakugo 4y ago

As stated in tweet #11, Twitter is overwhemingly staffed by people of one political orientation, and the company as a whole would thus have no issue with helping their political party win the election. They had no reason to sue.

anoonmoose 4y ago
And that is completely legal and allowed under the First Amendment.
dd36 4y ago
See Fox News…
- bakugo 4y ago
  What does fox news have to do with this?
  - dd36 4y ago
    A media company favoring a political party is not illegal. It’s indeed quite normal. That said, removing revenge porn isn’t favoring a political party.
    - pstuart 4y ago
      Fox does not "favor" the GOP. It is an instrument of the GOP.
      - dd36 4y ago
        True. Same difference.
archagon 4y ago
> Twitter is overwhemingly staffed by people of one political orientation Where is this information coming from?