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.
-
-
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
So we are currently waiting for a few cases to make their way to SCOTUS to find out whether or not social media has become a "public square" to the point where private corporations will be compelled to allow people to participate in them on equal terms.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @vyodaiken and
We have already had such a ruling in the past in Marsh v. Alabama. It was held that a private corporation could not prohibit First Amendment-protected activity because they had become effectively a government because there was no other way to access the public square.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @vyodaiken and
You're welcome to read about it here before making your next ignorant comment, if you want. Or you can just go ahead and tell me I don't know about the First Amendment again, and enlighten me with your legal "wisdom":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama …
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @vyodaiken and
Another option you could take would be to stop talking, because you obviously have no idea about the First Amendment, and probably have never heard of any of these cases, whereas I know them back to front because I sometimes actually learn about things before I run my mouth.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @cmuratori @vyodaiken and
You should stop acting like a know-it-all, because you're wrong. The SCOTUS precedent that counts, and has already been cited to in court rulings protecting social media for banning content, is their Halleck decision. Cited in prageru v Google https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/03/youtube-isnt-a-state-actor-duh-prageru-v-google.htm …pic.twitter.com/YrxPecw36h
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @NewStyle303 @vyodaiken and
A) This is exactly what I am talking about when I say we have to wait to see when a case makes it to SCOTUS, because PragerU is a Ninth Circuit case, not a SCOTUS case, and B) Halleck was 5/4, and C) Halleck doesn't deal with Section 230, DMCA, etc., or political speech.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
There are many, many reasons why Halleck is not the end of the story with respect to what will happen with on-line platforms. I am in no way trying to predict what the Supreme Court will do. Nobody knows, they change their mind pretty frequently.
-
-
Replying to @cmuratori @NewStyle303 and
But finally, as for your know-it-all comment, did you fail to notice that I ALREADY CITED THAT CASE before you brought it up? Or were you too busy on Google trying to find something?pic.twitter.com/1vkNvIug2g
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. 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.