3 ms·
> You are protected in your speech from the government In theory. In practice we see in the Twitter files, the new rule is that government agencies are free to
by user3939382 4y ago
> You are protected in your speech from the government
In theory. In practice we see in the Twitter files, the new rule is that government agencies are free to send takedown requests to social media platforms for speech that disagrees with our (abhorrent) foreign policy.
- krapp 4y ago>In practice we see in the Twitter files, the new rule is that government agencies are free to send takedown requests to social media platforms for speech that disagrees with our (abhorrent) foreign policy. Where in the Twitter files did it show that social media platforms would be punished with jail time or violence or anything if they refused to obey the government's orders? Because unless you can demonstrate the government was putting a gun to Twitter's head and would not take no for an answer, that isn't a "new rule" it's literally just the government making a request. Which they and anyone else is and has always been allowed to do. And which social media platforms have sometimes refused without reprisal. I mean, I see speech that disagrees with American foreign policy all the time on social media. No one's being sent to the camps for it. It doesn't even get censored.
- user3939382 4y agoTwitter didn’t need any additional pressure beyond what’s monumentally implicit, they had an FBI spook running the other side inside Twitter. Not to mention that the requests constituted a gross 1st amendment violation.
- otterley 4y ago> Not to mention that the requests constituted a gross 1st amendment violation. IAAL and am unaware of any case law that holds that the mere act of requesting material be removed from publication is a First Amendment violation. Do you have any case law to cite?