Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
That’s true of educated bigots and what have you, but there’s a sizeable part of the population that’s ignorant and genuinely believes the crap they spew.
If there is one good thing from Elon buying Twitter it’s him releasing the Twitter files showing that social media was doing things at the behest of the government in the aims to censor people.
Just a note about the injunction, it will not survive on appeal. The judge in this case stretched things pretty thin in his argument for the emergency injunction pending trial in this case. Lumping together government agencies reporting TOS violations with other elected officials threatening section 230 into one was just silly. Episode 771 of the Opening Arguments podcast does a better job of explaining the injunction and ongoing case than I ever could.
Not a fan of that argument. Twitter/Threads/Facebook/Reddit/etc are big enough to be considered a public forum, even if they’re being controlled by a private entity rather than a government.
And it is well-established that quasi-public spaces don’t enjoy the full protections on private spaces. They do fall under the restrictions on government actions in some ways, including how they’re able to restrict free speech.
What other established constitutional rights would you support large institutions not respecting as long as they aren’t directly run by the state?
We’re literally talking about Meta here. The claim that their actions are those of an independent private company are about as credible as if Lockheed Martin were forcibly quartering soldiers (err… private military contractors) in people’s homes and claiming that wasn’t a violation of the 3rd amendment.
Yes, that is how it works. Lockheed Martin isn’t a governmental body within the United States and is not bound by our Constitution in any way.
Regardless of our opinions on the matter, those are both private companies with their own rights that are not bound like a government under our current laws. People forget that because “corporations are people” they also get Constitutional protections. Our rights end where their rights start and vice versa.
Ironically, it does apply to corporations - just not in the way that you think.
Corporations have the right to freedom of speech - meaning they can choose to allow whatever the speech they like. Consequently, they can also choose to disallow whatever speech they don’t like.
I don’t understand why these people complain about “freedom of speech”. Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to private services.
They want freedom from the consequences of their shitty speech
Being a bigot and spewing hate speech is just a difference of opinion!! You all should have to listen to me or I’m being censored!!
Sartre said it…
That’s true of educated bigots and what have you, but there’s a sizeable part of the population that’s ignorant and genuinely believes the crap they spew.
Because they don’t understand what freedom of speech means, plain and simple.
I always refer to it as “the 4th grade playground definition” of free speech.
I don’t disagree with your premise, but what if they are doing the bidding of the government? Would you consider that being a defacto arm of the government? It’s currently being played out in the courts right now with the latest move was a judge put in an injunction barring the white house from communicating with social media companies.
If there is one good thing from Elon buying Twitter it’s him releasing the Twitter files showing that social media was doing things at the behest of the government in the aims to censor people.
Just a note about the injunction, it will not survive on appeal. The judge in this case stretched things pretty thin in his argument for the emergency injunction pending trial in this case. Lumping together government agencies reporting TOS violations with other elected officials threatening section 230 into one was just silly. Episode 771 of the Opening Arguments podcast does a better job of explaining the injunction and ongoing case than I ever could.
Corruption is a different topic.
Not a fan of that argument. Twitter/Threads/Facebook/Reddit/etc are big enough to be considered a public forum, even if they’re being controlled by a private entity rather than a government.
And it is well-established that quasi-public spaces don’t enjoy the full protections on private spaces. They do fall under the restrictions on government actions in some ways, including how they’re able to restrict free speech.
Big or small, but they have rules and ToS and can limit what you’re saying. And it’s ok.
What other established constitutional rights would you support large institutions not respecting as long as they aren’t directly run by the state?
We’re literally talking about Meta here. The claim that their actions are those of an independent private company are about as credible as if Lockheed Martin were forcibly quartering soldiers (err… private military contractors) in people’s homes and claiming that wasn’t a violation of the 3rd amendment.
Yes, that is how it works. Lockheed Martin isn’t a governmental body within the United States and is not bound by our Constitution in any way.
Regardless of our opinions on the matter, those are both private companies with their own rights that are not bound like a government under our current laws. People forget that because “corporations are people” they also get Constitutional protections. Our rights end where their rights start and vice versa.
Ironically, it does apply to corporations - just not in the way that you think.
Corporations have the right to freedom of speech - meaning they can choose to allow whatever the speech they like. Consequently, they can also choose to disallow whatever speech they don’t like.
Wut?
Meta/Twitter/whoever are also protected by the 1st Amendment when it comes to deciding what they allow on their platform.
A law or ruling that forces social media companies to carry specific speech is unconstitutional.
deleted by creator