3 ms·
Agreed, but that would require acting parties within Twitter to claim they were coerced or forced to act. Knowing who the acting parties were, that's highly unl
by andrew_ 4y ago
Agreed, but that would require acting parties within Twitter to claim they were coerced or forced to act. Knowing who the acting parties were, that's highly unlikely. So I don't think the counter-argument holds much water.
- anoonmoose 4y agoIf I understand you correctly, your argument asserts bad faith- that the people involved will lie. So I don't think your counter-counter-argument holds much water, either. And I'm not sure you're even strictly correct- having the employees testify against the argument would hurt, but I could still see Twitter being able to prove they were coerced, or at least try.
- andrew_ 4y agoYou've misunderstood. I don't believe the people who acted felt they were being coerced - I believe they felt they were doing the right thing and were happy to oblige.
- bavell 4y agoYes, this is so painfully obvious that it seems disingenuous to be so naive as to not understand.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- anoonmoose 4y agoNah, just misunderstood and somewhat continue to misunderstand their point. I don't see how the offered info is relevant to whether this is a 1A violation.
- candybar 4y agoThe 1st amendment doesn't come into play unless Twitter is being coerced by the government against their will. There's no legal prohibition against Twitter moderating their platform in a way that also pleases certain people associated with the government.