the left doesn’t seem to understand what legal intervention here would look like. if the gov steps in social media platforms will not become *more* censorious, they’ll be forced to liberalize. any speech short of an explicit incitement to violence is constitutionally protected.https://twitter.com/mariachong/status/1137034789087670272 …
-
1) I’m not the Left. I’m a conservative Christian. 2) I’m WARNING the government will step in, which likely means I think it’s better if private entities self-regulate. 3) Simplistic reactionary thinking is dumb. 4) “Private party declines to host your shitty words” ≠ censorship
it’s the literal definition of censorship, though, yes, *legal* where private. however we’ve never seen private censorship at the scale of *the entire public square* before. we’re approaching the de facto negation of 1A. worth asking if we’re ok with that (imo we shouldn’t be)
-
-
That’s a valid consideration and it’s something I think about a lot as an undesirable (Christian) whose tribe is being targeted at times for “censorship.” But even highly regulated AT&T was able to address abuse and harassment. Neutrality laws don’t force inaction/lawlessness.
-
I don’t think the courts will allow degrading of private ownership rights (the right to censor, expel, limit in places and platforms you own or control, including homes). Hate speech in a public park might be protected by law and by principle, but there is absolutely no virtue or
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.