Well yes... because that’s the government doing it. Not individuals refusing to broadcast his show. That’s the entire distinction that he was making
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This tweet of yours does not convey any confidence that you understand the First Amendment, which one would ordinarily think might bother you a bit.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Stelter is fundamentally dishonest but in that clip he isn’t arguing for government interference. He sounds like Limbaugh for most of his career when he said that freedom of speech doesn’t mean you have the right to be heard.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But are we dealing with "the government" threatening to censor someone -- or with privately owned companies potentially rethinking whom they distribute? There's a world of difference between the two.
-
There is, but the "freedom of reach" principle would be ruinous if applied to the freedom vs the government.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Sure you can have freedom of speech, just don’t be too loud with it....
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well yeah because that would be a pretty clear violation of the first amendment. What Stelter is talking about isnt. This isn’t just a false equivalence, it’s laziness
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.