Government oversight is bad, but this "flagrantly violating the First Amendment" argument is pretty spicy. We can't just let people go uncensored and speak to each other freely, that's against the First Amendment!https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1141415506810998784 …
-
-
I'm making an a fortiari argument: that case for reexamining the First Amendment (in favor of permitting things like a fairness doctrine) ought to be stronger for systems like broadcast television. And yet I think experience and logic show it should never have been permitted.
-
The Equal-Time Rule was a thing, but I think there are far too many differences to make a mutatis mutandis argument here.
-
People never used TV to have conversations with friends, they just used speech. Closest parallel would be to CB/ham radio.
-
The point is that any censorship Twitter imposes is necessarily less effective at restricting the discourse than an editorial decision of a broadcaster when there were only four channels.
-
It feels like we're having two different arguments and I don't know how to bridge the gap here so I'll bow out.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.