3 ms·

It does not apply to interactions in other nations, nor interactions between people in the U.S. or companies. If the government is not involved, the First Amend

It does not apply to interactions in other nations, nor interactions between people in the U.S. or companies. If the government is not involved, the First Amendment does not apply. I believe this should be tested in the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Governments are using Twitter as their primary and sometimes only means of communications to and from the people. It is not clear to me if this was intentional or a mistake. Are they abusing "It's a private platform ..." and/or that is how they felt citizens could be reached? If the primary means of communication is or should be email or telephone then I believe we should make that clear and Twitter posts from government officials should be labelled as "Unofficial Communications from the {insert government office}. Call: nnn-nnn-nnnn to speak directly to this representative" and probably also mouse-over labelled as "Potential Opinion, Potential Misinformation, not an official stance of {insert government office}." If this is not an option then all government members should be prevented from having an Official Twitter account and instead they must be labelled as Private Personal Account and the government must instead have their own Mastodon and Matrix instances on government networks.

armada651 3y ago
How does the government using Twitter as a means of communication infringe anyone's freedom of speech? Just because the government uses the services of a corporation does not make that corporation a government agency. Twitter doesn't suddenly lose its right to moderate speech on its platform just because the government uses that platform.
- kstrauser 3y ago
  Right. It can and should restrict how the government uses those services, but not the service itself.
- LinuxBender 3y ago
  Twitter doesn't suddenly lose its right to moderate speech on its platform just because the government uses that platform. I think it does, if that is the only means of communication with them. Meaning they only engage on Twitter/X and let their voicemail boxes fill up. That is why I believe this should be tested in the supreme court. [Edit] I should also that that with the former federal agents that managed to get planted in Twitter that were colluding with active duty federal agents that puts Twitter and the US government position in control of speech. I have no idea if Elon removed all of those people or not or if it makes a difference at this point. For all intents and purposes regarding speech the federal government has functional control as if they had used eminent domain but without getting approval to do so. I assume speech on Twitter is highly curated at this point. Curated speech has no place in government communications with its people.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
sdenton4 3y ago
It's not totally clear what, exactly, you're unhappy about here. Should the government also not be allowed to use newspapers to transmit information? What's special about using social media as a communication medium? There have been decisions about /how/ government officials can use social media. Most notably, Trump was not allowed to use Twitter's 'block' feature to silence critics, because of the first amendment. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter...
- dfxm12 3y ago
  I think it's important here to clarify that Trump wasn't allowed to block people because it precluded the people he blocked from seeing Trump's tweets, which were judged to be a matter of national interest. He often made announcements via twitter. It wasn't about him not being allowed silence critics; he could still do that via the "mute" feature.
- sieabahlpark 3y ago
  [dead]
seiferteric 3y ago
I think my only issue is when the Government applies pressure to private companies to censor when they otherwise wouldn't. That seems to be a gray area since it is de facto the Government taking this action. Also in TFA it says it is only about the Government and not individuals, but according to this: https://www.brownfirmpllc.com/can-an-individual-violate-my-first-amendment-rights/ https://www.brownfirmpllc.com/can-an-individual-violate-my-f... it is not always the case, if Gov't conspires with individuals, they can both be liable. Also I think we need some baseline law for ISP's, not sure if common carrier covers it or not, but I don't think they should be allowed to selectively block.

armada651 3y ago

How does the government using Twitter as a means of communication infringe anyone's freedom of speech? Just because the government uses the services of a corporation does not make that corporation a government agency. Twitter doesn't suddenly lose its right to moderate speech on its platform just because the government uses that platform.

kstrauser 3y ago
Right. It can and should restrict how the government uses those services, but not the service itself.
LinuxBender 3y ago
Twitter doesn't suddenly lose its right to moderate speech on its platform just because the government uses that platform. I think it does, if that is the only means of communication with them. Meaning they only engage on Twitter/X and let their voicemail boxes fill up. That is why I believe this should be tested in the supreme court. [Edit] I should also that that with the former federal agents that managed to get planted in Twitter that were colluding with active duty federal agents that puts Twitter and the US government position in control of speech. I have no idea if Elon removed all of those people or not or if it makes a difference at this point. For all intents and purposes regarding speech the federal government has functional control as if they had used eminent domain but without getting approval to do so. I assume speech on Twitter is highly curated at this point. Curated speech has no place in government communications with its people.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

sdenton4 3y ago

It's not totally clear what, exactly, you're unhappy about here. Should the government also not be allowed to use newspapers to transmit information? What's special about using social media as a communication medium? There have been decisions about /how/ government officials can use social media. Most notably, Trump was not allowed to use Twitter's 'block' feature to silence critics, because of the first amendment. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter-first-amendment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/09/us/politics/trump-twitter...

dfxm12 3y ago
I think it's important here to clarify that Trump wasn't allowed to block people because it precluded the people he blocked from seeing Trump's tweets, which were judged to be a matter of national interest. He often made announcements via twitter. It wasn't about him not being allowed silence critics; he could still do that via the "mute" feature.
sieabahlpark 3y ago
[dead]

seiferteric 3y ago

I think my only issue is when the Government applies pressure to private companies to censor when they otherwise wouldn't. That seems to be a gray area since it is de facto the Government taking this action. Also in TFA it says it is only about the Government and not individuals, but according to this: https://www.brownfirmpllc.com/can-an-individual-violate-my-first-amendment-rights/ https://www.brownfirmpllc.com/can-an-individual-violate-my-f... it is not always the case, if Gov't conspires with individuals, they can both be liable. Also I think we need some baseline law for ISP's, not sure if common carrier covers it or not, but I don't think they should be allowed to selectively block.