3 ms·

Could someone explain to me how twitter has any legal obligation to provide a platform supporting all types of 1A protected content? Doesn’t that violate the ow

Could someone explain to me how twitter has any legal obligation to provide a platform supporting all types of 1A protected content? Doesn’t that violate the owner of twitters 1A rights? If I owned a message board, and started deleting users post at random, or because of personal taste, would that be a 1A violation? I may or may not be an asshole, but it’s my message board. There are other parallels I can draw, but these are honest questions.

hidelooktropic 4y ago
The 1A states that congress should pass no law prohibiting the freedom of speech. That's really all the 1A is. Not much room for interpretation. So yes. Your example easily doesn't violate the 1A.
M4v3R 4y ago
Honest answer (IANAL): it doesn’t have legal obligation to support all kinds of free speech. But in my opinion that’s because the governments fail to recognize these huge, influential social platforms for what they really are - utilities. They become pervasive and essential in lives of most people in the developed countries. And as such there should exist some checks and balances to make sure these platforms are not used to skew the opinion of the general public one way or another. Powerful people on both sides of political spectrum should not have direct lines to moderation teams “suggesting” what should be removed or suppressed, nor the moderators should act on their own accord when the speech in question isn’t explicitly violating any laws or site policies. I know this might sound pretty idealistic but for anyone who thinks otherwise please entertain the possibility that such control could one day turn against you, your political candidate or your personal beliefs and suddenly it will be you who finds themselves in the crosshairs of censorship when there’s a story you believe should be brought up. It’s an ugly timeline that I don’t want to live in.
- trentgreene 4y ago
  Yeah so this is an interesting point, the non-utility thst may secretly be a utility. See also net neutrality and censorship claims there. You could make a similar argument for news, another non-utility. They seem to have a model where outlets have a distinct pov that guides a variety of informal and formal censorship. Right wing doesn’t write stuff that looks bad for them, left wing too, local news follow local interests, etc.
- abliefern 4y ago
  Even if it's a "utility" (whatever that really means in this case) the First Amendment still has nothing to do with it.
- lazyeye 4y ago
  Yes the town square has been both monopolised and privatised. And there's now been this complete role reversal where Democrats (the "great defenders of democracy") are arguing that private media companies can do whatever they like. And conservatives are arguing that there needs to be a govt intervention with these companies.
Georgelemental 4y ago
In this case, Twitter was deleting posts at the request of the government. That is the 1A violation
- shagie 4y ago
  What government was making the requests? What was the role of the people making the requests in state or federal government at the time of the requests (October 2020)? I will amend this to further ask "are people employed in the public sector prevented from click the 'report' or 'flag' button on social media sites?"

hidelooktropic 4y ago

The 1A states that congress should pass no law prohibiting the freedom of speech. That's really all the 1A is. Not much room for interpretation. So yes. Your example easily doesn't violate the 1A.

M4v3R 4y ago

Honest answer (IANAL): it doesn’t have legal obligation to support all kinds of free speech. But in my opinion that’s because the governments fail to recognize these huge, influential social platforms for what they really are - utilities. They become pervasive and essential in lives of most people in the developed countries. And as such there should exist some checks and balances to make sure these platforms are not used to skew the opinion of the general public one way or another. Powerful people on both sides of political spectrum should not have direct lines to moderation teams “suggesting” what should be removed or suppressed, nor the moderators should act on their own accord when the speech in question isn’t explicitly violating any laws or site policies. I know this might sound pretty idealistic but for anyone who thinks otherwise please entertain the possibility that such control could one day turn against you, your political candidate or your personal beliefs and suddenly it will be you who finds themselves in the crosshairs of censorship when there’s a story you believe should be brought up. It’s an ugly timeline that I don’t want to live in.

trentgreene 4y ago
Yeah so this is an interesting point, the non-utility thst may secretly be a utility. See also net neutrality and censorship claims there. You could make a similar argument for news, another non-utility. They seem to have a model where outlets have a distinct pov that guides a variety of informal and formal censorship. Right wing doesn’t write stuff that looks bad for them, left wing too, local news follow local interests, etc.
abliefern 4y ago
Even if it's a "utility" (whatever that really means in this case) the First Amendment still has nothing to do with it.
lazyeye 4y ago
Yes the town square has been both monopolised and privatised. And there's now been this complete role reversal where Democrats (the "great defenders of democracy") are arguing that private media companies can do whatever they like. And conservatives are arguing that there needs to be a govt intervention with these companies.

Georgelemental 4y ago

In this case, Twitter was deleting posts at the request of the government. That is the 1A violation

shagie 4y ago
What government was making the requests? What was the role of the people making the requests in state or federal government at the time of the requests (October 2020)? I will amend this to further ask "are people employed in the public sector prevented from click the 'report' or 'flag' button on social media sites?"