I appreciate the spirit of this but I don’t think it’s legally defensible in the long run in America particularly with the way the courts have tended toward an expansionist View of 1a. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/ …https://twitter.com/kimmaicutler/status/1029854853483229184?s=21 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @LessThanLiz @aprilaser
If you read that excessively long thread linked above and
@klonick's paper, Twitter's legal team modeled their norms after existing precedents in American 1st amendment law. https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/1598-1670_Online.pdf …1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @LessThanLiz and
the cases referenced above all reference early Internet companies like Compuserve, Prodigy, AOL, etc. There are also cases about privately-operated spaces like shopping centers the Supreme Court has ruled that people have 1a rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
if you wanted to operate something like what @aprilaser is referencing above, it would probably have to be in a country where their legal norms around speech already align with her perspective on racist speech
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.