- Joined
- Mar 27, 2014
- Messages
- 63,570
- Reaction score
- 33,577
- Location
- Tennessee
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Define "public forum." This place is a "public forum" but we all operate under rules dictated from above by the benevolent dictators who run the place, and those rules are WAY beyond "break the law". The mods ban speech every day or week that would be protected by the 1A if it was government doing the censoring.Your argument above is funny for two reasons:
1) Twitter is in fact a public forum and retains protection from liability from contents posted to the forum... again: See Nick Sandman case.
So I don't know what you mean by "public forum" other than it's a place where the "public" can post freely, but under rules dictated by the owners of that site, which are clearly up to them.
Try again. "In this case Twitter is a business, not a "public forum", and every 'social media' site has found out that being a platform for neo-Nazis or bigots or just assholes and trolls is bad business."Twitter is no more a "platform for Neo-Nazis" than I95 is a Neo-Nazi highway.
You are deliberately missing the point.
So what? I'm not conceding they banned people just for making "anti-Progressive" statements, but it's their business and they can run it as they see fit. If it goes under, boo hoo.2) Deciding to ban people from Twitter for making anti-Progressive statements was also clearly bad for their business since they were hemorrhaging money before Elon even made a bid.
The problem, as you know if you just read the words of the 1A, is that the constitution only protects speech from government censorship. There is no such thing as a privately owned "public" forum. If it is privately owned, the owners can censor at will, and that's a GOOD THING.Where did I say anything like that? You'll need to show your work on that nonsense.
..... took me a whole 2 seconds so I understand how you failed to check your own stupid claim...
Twitter's Tony Wang: 'We are the free speech wing of the free speech party'
Social networking site's general manager says it takes a neutral view on posted messages. By Josh Hallidaywww.theguardian.com
I guess your main problem is you don't like how Twitter was run. I don't really care about your opinion of that. My point is very simple - Twitter decides how its run, not you, not Big Brother, not moderation overseers appointed by Biden or a future President AOC or a future President DeSantis. The 1A protects Twitter's right to run their site as they see fit.Was the Babylon Bee Neo-Nazi? All you do with this stupid line of argumen is prove you have no clue exactly who and what was being banned from Twitter. Your idiot demagoguery only exposes how thin your mask is. This isn't about Neo-Nazis blasting illegal calls to violence since they'll still be banned... unlike ....
Twitter execs refused Israel’s request to remove Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei tweets
Twitter executives last month rebuffed a request from the Israeli government to remove tweets from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for the genocide of the Israeli people …nypost.com
I certainly don't believe it was ever "politically neutral." That would mean it's politically neutral to fascism, anti-Semitism, white supremacy, etc..... And I don't know how it's possible to be perfectly politically neutral to "conservatism" or "liberalism" or whatever label you want to assign to the two party system in the U.S. and I don't actually care. Musk endorsed the GOP on his platform before the mid terms, so he took a "biased" stand in favor of the GOP. He said he'd support DeSantis if he runs in 2024. That is also not "politically neutral" and it's FINE. That is his his right under the 1A! If @Jack was politically biased and ran his company in a way that was politically biased against MAGAs, that's HIS constitutional right.That it was politically neutral.
What you right wingers don't get is that the constitution in fact protects our right, and the right of private entities, to be politically biased. That's THE core protection, the promise of 'free speech', which is to advocate against politicians, parties, government, with which we disagree, and to advocate forcefully for something different, without fear of government reprisal.
That's a series of straw men, but you do you....Well sure, but as you have demonstrated, the Democrats and their apologists think everything that goes against them is a matter of national security. The Democrats have stage 2 authoritarianism where they believe themselves to be the only source of good and light and so everyone who doesn't support them are enemies of the state.
See how easily they convinced you that Twitter opening up their forums = Twitter is Neo-Nazis.