It could be argued that, via Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, Facebook gained the benefits of editorial control with no corresponding liabilities for not exercising it. Free speech strings could be attached to that benefit. See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prodigy_Services_Co ….
there are many things facebook isn't legally allowed to do. why would we draw the line at monopolizing the public square, and deleting free speech?
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
- Show replies
-
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.