Conservative judges trampling the constitution because Trump was banned from Twitter

They can delete any post which violates the law, or the TOS. You don't have to agree with it, or with any other private property right claim, but it is what it is. Publishers create content, while social media allows users to create it.

 

If the "conservative Libertarians" you speak of only care about rights when it is convenient for them, then they aren't actually libertarian in the least.

 

They were? Examples?

Social Media dodge a lot of legal restrictions by claiming they don't exercise editorial powers and are merely a communications conduit - blocking Trump IS exercising editorial powers and therefore a violation. How could blocking Trump on any pretext be considered "free speech"? Stop whining.

 

Having a ToS doesn't take away their rights. Unlike actual editorial organizations, they don't review and pre-approve all comms that they publish. They just have a ToS and they will sometimes flag inaccuracies after the fact . . . which shouldn't be an issue. Stop whining about their rights and deal with it.

 

If only that were so. But they exercise "editorial" judgement extensively; almost entirely towards one side of the issue. Yes, some TOS issues are legitimate - threats, inciting violence, etc. but allowing both sides of an issue is assumed.

 

I've heard the analogies, but never any real evidence. I see far-right content on FB all of the time. Constantly. I've also heard from several leftists who have had their content removed. I also don't buy "But it's not fair! They are being meanie heads" as a good reason for taking away the rights of these companies.

 

Maybe you're not looking in the right place. And of course you'd never see the stuff that is blocked, would you?

 

I'm seeing tons of rightwing stuff . . . because I'm not looking in the right place? That makes no sense.

 

The sudden interest in the constitution is refreshing.

People only complain about the constitution being used as toilet paper when the wrong a-whole is being wiped. When its an a-whole they support, wipe away.

 

It's always fun to see such projection.

 

They certainly can delete and edit posts until their hearts content and that makes them a publisher and not eligible for 230 protections. They’re welcome to keep editing their content and editing posts for “misinformation” until their little hearts are content. They will just be liable for what’s posted on their site.

 

No it doesn't, but heck, whatever makes you and your handlers happy.

Have a nice day.

 

Lol my handlers? I’m a Russian asset now too? Lols

Yes it does. Why can’t any publisher be eligible for section 230 protections?

Because they are disseminating THEIR opinion/viewpoint. Which is exactly what Facebook/Twitter is doing when they edit and delete posts for “misinformation”. They are disseminating THEIR viewpoint and not those of their posters. Making them publishers not eligible for 230 protections.

I’m not sure how you’re even making this argument. When Facebook flags a post for misinformation many times they’ll allow it to be posted but in order to see if you have to click on their (or their paid “fact-checkers”) explanation of why they think this post is wrong and “possibly misinformation”. On what ****ing grounds do you assert that doesn’t make them publishers?

 

Cool beans. Whatever makes you and your handlers happy. If you want them to be publishers even though they don't publish anything, then so be it.

 

Fake News. The First sentence contains a hyperlink and from there you are free to click through several additional hyperlinks. And pay attention, the items NOT IN QUOTES are not QUOTES and quite the contrary, I have done a wonderful job bringing a brilliantly sourced argument to the discussion, YOU'RE WELCOME!

 

Yeah, whatever.

 

Fake News. You are claiming that the First Amendment guarantees a right to CENSOR OTHERS!

Now That Twitter Belongs To Elon, Here Is What He Will Do To The Platform In His Own Words

​

"I have an idea for a blockchain media system that does both payments and short text messages/links like twitter."

'First, Musk believes in free speech.'

Twitter's ridiculous ban of the Babylon Bee drove Musks' acquisition of the censorious frauds of Twitter.

'Musk wants to make Twitter an open source algo because it's important that "our public square needs to not have arbitrary sketch censorship. Musk: What we have right now is hidden corruption!"

Status Quo: 'it is the de facto public town square, but It is a problem that it does not adhere to free speech principles. => so the core product is pretty good, but (i) it does not serve democracy, and (ii) the current business model is a dead end as reflected by flat share price.'

Goal: 'Make Twitter the global backbone of free speech, an open marketplace of ideas that truly complies with the spirit of the first amendment and shift the business model to a combination of ad-supported and paid to support quality.'

 

The op is dead wrong as usual. This isnt about companies acting on their own. It is about companies acting as government adjuncts.
And being threatened by Democrat politicians if they don't.

 

If you own a platform, you have a right to create a terms of service and de-platform violators.

The first amendment protects your right to do that. What is spoken on your platform is controlled by your first amendment right.

the first amendment protects your speech to not be infringed by the government.


That's they way it was, once upon a time, now apparently, the court is changing the rules.

All you are saying is Musk will have a different TOS than the previous twitter owners. Nothing, in principle, has really changed.

 

Think about it!

If I were to say.

yardmeat is a
Edited
.
.
.
.
.
.
Edited
Most of the time!

How would you know what is NOT SHOWN Make more sense now?

 

The more fairly and even handed the application of the rules, the more likely that they will survive Court Review.

You're claiming that the first Amendment guarantees your right to PREVENT the speech of others, and that's absurd. Many of these platforms are also record claiming that they are merely common carriers, plainly stating that the speech of others is not their speech.

 

There is a concept, as I understand it, in law, called 'the reasonable person'. Obviously, the TOS has to be about fairness.

I have yet to read any TOS where the platform owner claimed 'we reserve the right to reject opinions we disagree with'. I've never seen it.

I wouldn't support that, no reasonable person would.

So, I'm not sure what you are talking about.