3 ms·

Commercial speech is regulated. That might not make a lot of sense in a time when "money is speech." But that's not a problem the people created.

• perihelions 3y ago
  If Twitter solicits you to purchase Twitter Blue, that's Commercial Speech. If Twitter bans your account for praising Hitler, that's [Twitter exercising] political speech: Twitter would be protected by the First Amendment. The mere fact Twitter is a commercial, monetized service doesn't trigger a Twitter-wide First Amendment exception—any more than, say, the New York Times being a for-profit corporation opens the door for the feds to censor its political columns. Even if they're behind a paywall. Commercial Speech is a narrow carve-out for "advertisements and solicitations". It's not applicable to Twitter moderation.
  • Zigurd 3y ago
    There is a good argument that company policies about product use is commercial speech. "Here take this opioid, we have funded studies that say it won't hurt you" got regulated pretty hard. "We think the 'woke mind virus' is worse than capital-F Fascism and will moderate that way" is very much about Twitter's product.
    • perihelions 3y ago
      Anything about "woke" and "fascism" is constitutionally protected political speech. This is an easy call.
  • PeterisP 3y ago
    Sure, but Twitter banning (or not banning) your account for praising Hitler is political speech, however, Twitter stating "we are/aren't a platform for free speech" or "our moderation will/won't ban your account for praising Hitler" is commercial speech similar to it soliciting you to purchase Twitter blue, it's a statement about the media service they're offering as part of their business, and that's something that can be reasonably compelled. The law does not make any requests about how Twitter should moderate things, it asks for information about how Twitter does moderate things. First amendment protection should ensure that government is prohibited to impose restrictions if a company says they will/won't ban accounts for praising Hitler, however, the people certainly have the right to take action in response to that, and the government has the right to compel Twitter to disclose to these people truthful information about their media product. If they have a policy document stating "posts which contain more than three letters 'z' shall be deleted", they have a right to moderate this way if they wish - however, do they have a constitutional right to keep that policy document secret from the public? The way I see it, laws are permitted to regulate the disclosure of company policies.