6 ms·
Downvoted because it completely misses the point, which is that a private company should not be told by the government to restrict speech, even if (especially i
by jakear 4y ago
Downvoted because it completely misses the point, which is that a private company should not be told by the government to restrict speech, even if (especially if) that speech is in conflict with the "official policy" the government has decreed.
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
- avs733 4y agoShouldn’t it be up to the company? Congress made no law, no on forced Twitter from what I’m reading, they made a choice. That is their right. Demanding that people hold an antagonistic or untrusting view of government speech is no different than any other sort of speech code demand.
- jakear 4y agoI'm not demanding an antagonistic view, I'm requesting for antagonistic views to be vocalizable without the White House demanding you to be deplatformed.
- andrew_ 4y agoWe have direct evidence of federal pressure from multiple federal sources. We can see from what's been released that Twitter's leadership had concerns when pushing back even in the slightest. To assert that Twitter could have ignored that pressure and the requests that accompanied it without repercussions would be incredibly naive.
- etchalon 4y agoThere's evidence, posted in the threads, of Twitter doing exactly that about numerous specific points. Twitter has, on multiple occasions, fought against states and government interests to unmask its users. So, there exists evidence, and examples, that Twitter could have pushed back without repercussions. There is no evidence of Twitter having suffered for doing so.
- tayo42 4y agoFree speach isn't absolute. There's plenty of examples in life already where you can't say whatever you want.
- jakear 4y agoIs it too much to ask that we don't add to that set?
- tayo42 4y ago[flagged]
- jakear 4y agoWere an individual legitimately trying to make a point, they would come up with an example not already in the set.
- tayo42 4y agoWe've decided that speech that is harmful is not allowed. Encouraging people to not get a vaccine we decided is harmful speech. Like telling you to kill your self, or the yelling fire in a theater. Are you not OK with that example of speech though? Dangerous speech seems to make you uncomfortable no?
- goatlover 4y agoWouldn't it depend on the demographic? Covid was not equally deadly among all ages and groups. Is it wrong to point out that the risk is significantly lower for the young and healthy? And what if it's experts questioning policies such as keeping lower income students home? Or the effectiveness of masking mandates beyond a certain point or situations of low risk like being outdoors?
- tayo42 4y ago