re: Musk would end "morally wrong" Donald Trump twitter ban

quote:

---

When government chooses to make official announcements and advisements on the platform, it becomes such. Like it or not.


That’s not how this works

---

I cant believe what these "conservatives" are actually pushing in this thread. If I create a highly successful business that becomes so big that the government evens uses it, they now own it? Thats asinine.

And yes you are insinuating that if u think the 1st amendment should apply to Twitter.

I get the whole premise of the town square debate but there are still protections for the business from the government just co-opting it

quote:

---

isn’t a free speech thing

---

How is it not a free speech thing?

quote:

---

And Twitter has nothing to do with the government as it’s a private company unless you want to nationalize Twitter your complaint holds no weight

---

So why did the government decide to start a ministry of truth when the musk deal became public? Was the government influencing or coercing Twitter? I’d so…

I'm pretty doubtful of that but I guess I'll never really know for sure

quote:

---

you definitely lack the understanding of those rulings if you think that’s what was stated.

---

The court further held that the President had opened up the “interactive space” of
that platform as a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment by making the account’s “interactive
features accessible to the public without limitation.”

Looks to me it's quite literally what it states.

Honest question.....do you have a person assigned to you that reminds you when to breath? It baffles me that you could possible have the mental capacity to do that on your own.

quote:

---

The court further held that the President had opened up the “interactive space” of
that platform as a public forum for purposes of the First Amendment by making the account’s “interactive
features accessible to the public without limitation.”

Looks to me it's quite literally what it states

---

If you read the entire decision they make it very clear that twitter is not a public forum. Only replies to tweets from the President/government official are "public forum" according to the ruling.

You are making a huge mistake if you think that ruling extends to personal accounts.

quote:

---

The joke would be millions return to Twitter and Truth would continue to flounder.

---

We’re you born a dumbass or did you have to work on it?

[

quote:

---

Quick 1st amendment test - Walk into your boss's office, call him an a-hole, and claim that you have freedom of speech. He will correctly point out that yes, you do, you just used it, and you are fired.

---

I am the boss so I say what I want.

But more importantly, there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding in this thread regarding "free speech."

Do you think that just because particular speech isn't specifically protected by the First Amendment, that there can be no free speech implications?

First, law and the application/enforcement of law follow and are shaped by political culture and societal norms. If we are conditioned, by those who control the vast majority of the means of communication, to believe that censorship is good or at least to be tolerated, then we won't even notice when the First Amendment is violated, shat upon, and ultimately dashed.

Second, even if I had a boss, your example isn't particularly apt. Speech in my boss's office is not similar in any relevant way to mass censorship by companies who control the prevailing means of communication.

Third, I won't get into this much, but at some point, when government (through entitlements, tax incentives and disincentives, regulation, etc) and communication companies (social media etc) are inextricably wed, we have a fascist state where the government can subcontract out censorship.

So, yeah keep on believing that there's no free speech implications involved in "private" censorship.

quote:

---

And Twitter has nothing to do with the government as it’s a private company unless you want to nationalize Twitter your complaint holds no weight

---

No I wouldnt want to nationalize it. And the freedom of speech is not in regards to the legal issues with the constitution.

We are saying that the banning\shadow banning etc that twitter is doing has negative effects on peoples ability to speak freely. Yes twitter has the right to do what it wants, the point is that what they are doing stifles speech.

Most would understand if a poster was encouraging violence but just differing points of view should be allowed.

So they banned Trump for some vague reference on Jan 6, which if you actually listen to the entire speech was a giant nothing burger. But at the same time twitter allows the Ayatollah to remain. When he has posted "death to the USA and death to Israel". Those statements are not a joke. They mean exactly what they say.

Why have then not shut down that account?

quote:

---

If you read the entire decision they make it very clear that twitter is not a public forum. Only replies to tweets from the President/government official are "public forum" according to the ruling.

You are making a huge mistake if you think that ruling extends to personal accounts.

---

none of this matters. private companies can impose their own rules. it shouldn't be a problem if they choose to adopt free speech oriented policies. your muh 1st amendment doesn't apply, does apply if the company wants it to.