3 ms·
But it’s not “their” site, because the censorship decisions were being made by the government and Twitter was acting on behalf of these congressmen, etc. Thus
by goodluckchuck 4y ago
But it’s not “their” site, because the censorship decisions were being made by the government and Twitter was acting on behalf of these congressmen, etc. Thus Twitter’s actions were subject to the 1st Amendment. Congress cannot launder their illegal activities through an intermediary. The intermediary becomes a government actor.
- nirvgorilla 4y agoIt really doesn't matter. As much as I don't like it, someone can still use things like rot13 to get their messages out on twitter to others. You could also link a youtube video that has material that "biden's team" doesn't want on twitter. If I came to your house and before I got there, the president called you and told you NOT to let me in, you may or may not do it. It's up to you. It's still YOUR HOUSE and you have the ultimate choice. That's all a website is.
- luckylion 4y agoI suppose the question is the relationship and history between the parties. If there's an implicit "or else" in the president's demand, things look differently, don't they? With that kind of power delta, there's always an implied "or else", I believe.
- kevincox 4y agoJust because politicians asked them too and they decided it was in their best interest to comply doesn't make it much if any less their site. Untill actual laws are passed they can choose to comply or not as they see fit.