Are you all right with someone yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? (there is no fire)
-
-
Replying to @maxmare @AshkanAliabadi and
That analogy comes from an authoritarian Supreme Court ruling where they held it was constitutional for the government to prevent people from handing out anti-draft pamphlets. Then, as now, people use irrelevant analogies as this in their attempts to silence legitimate speech.
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @maxmare and
That ruling was later overturned, because it was clearly not in keeping with the ideals of the First Amendment.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @maxmare and
It has been a long, difficult road of court cases trying to find the right balance. We do not need Twitter et al to come on the scene for ten years and then decide they know better than the entire history of American jurisprudence.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @maxmare and
Twitter is not a government agency. They are not making speech illegal. They are not bound by the 1st Amendment. They are attempting, poorly, to enforce their terms of service and act responsibly.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vyodaiken @cmuratori and
If you don't know that the 1st Amendment is about GOVERNMENT prohibition of speech and that is different from a private company policing terms of service, then maybe you should sit this one out.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @vyodaiken @maxmare and
Actually, we don't know that yet. Which of course _you_ would know if you listened more instead of being an 24/7 asshole. It will be decided within the next few years. Social media was already declared a public square Packingham v. North Carolina.pic.twitter.com/7etuL5sw3D
5 replies 0 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @vyodaiken and
Then the courts are making a mistake. Private property rights are essential for a free society. I agree that social media companies have a history of bad policy decisions. It is in our best interest and theirs if they could adopt more open and sensible moderation policy.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @jkycole @cmuratori and
But that doesn't give us the right to steal their website and turn it over to the state. It's Twitter's website; if they want to make bad decisions that hurt their bottom line, then that's their problem.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @jkycole @vyodaiken and
None of this is true, of course. It is not "Twitter's website". The reason it exists is because the government created an exception to copyright and liability law specifically for Silicon Valley. If they had not, Twitter/Facebook/etc. would not exist.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
The notion that Silicon Valley gets to have carve outs to all the laws that the rest of have to live by, but then doesn't have to be subject to regulation, is absurd. If you want to argue that we should repeal IP and liability law entirely, go for it.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @jkycole and
But if Twitter gets to have exception to all the laws that we have to follow, but then _doesn't_ have to provide equal access, to me that is a problem, and "but capitalism" has nothing to do with it. This isn't, and never was, a "free market".
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.