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 …
-
-
Oh, it's not that I think there are things that I would *change* about norms, it's that they *can be* changed. So to make a comparison, US common law changes, and so does our interpretation of the Constitution, BUT WE HAVE A CONSTITUTION that theoretically reflects core VALUES 1/
-
I'm mostly fearful of this. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/politics/first-amendment-conservatives-supreme-court.html … Like that platforms could continue to do more and more above the 1A base and then have the opposite reaffirmed at the SC level.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
FB doesn't have that. It has a mission statement. & this is a part of a bigger discussion, but basically, I think that tying itself to the mast on a couple of big ideas on speech is a very good thing, especially when public "outrage" can easily alter company "norms" 2/2
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.