Well, if they're legally a platform, then they do have to uphold free speech. If they're a publisher, then they don't. They need to clearly make this distinction.
-
-
Replying to @KJ_Jeller @xilefheinzel and
Not in the First Amendment, but in the laws passed by CONGRESS.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KJ_Jeller @JMeuvi76 and
It's in the way communication is regulated from my understanding. You can be like the phone company, where you can't be held liable and take no responsibility for content, or like a publisher where you can be held liable, and take all responsibility for content.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @schwaka_ @KJ_Jeller and
Currently, social media falls under the first category legally, while they behave like they're in the second. They need to pick a side and take what comes with it instead of sitting in the middle and picking the parts they like from each side.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KJ_Jeller @schwaka_ and
Exactly. You just ruined your own point here. Since they are publishers, they don't have to give everyone a platform. But since these social media companies profess to be platforms, they legally are required to give everyone a platform.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KJ_Jeller @schwaka_ and
So are you saying phone companies should be able to restrict what people say on their platforms? This is what a platform means, they can not restrict speech on their platforms because they are open platforms. If they were publishers, they could feel free to restrict what ...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
people say, but they also could be opened up to a lot of potential legal troubles in copyright cases and such, as they would be considered responsible for everything that people put up on their platforms.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.