Comment by lingrush4
Comment by lingrush4 5 days ago
Freedom of speech has literally never prevented a private company from controlling the content on its platform.
Comment by lingrush4 5 days ago
Freedom of speech has literally never prevented a private company from controlling the content on its platform.
You mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files
These twitter files:
"After the first set of files was published, various technology and media journalists said that the reported evidence demonstrated little more than Twitter's policy team struggling with difficult decisions, but resolving such matters swiftly. Some conservatives said that the documents demonstrated what they called Twitter's liberal bias...
In June 2023, lawyers working for Twitter contested many of the claims made in the Twitter Files in court. According to CNN, 'the filing by Musk's own corporate lawyers represents a step-by-step refutation of some of the most explosive claims to come out of the Twitter Files and that in some cases have been promoted by Musk himself.'
"
The nothingburger Twitter Files?
Please don't comment like this here. HN is for curious conversation, not this kind belligerence. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Curious that Musk's/Twitter's lawyers also said the vast majority of the claims in the Twitter Files were unfounded.
What is your explanation for that?
Why would I need to explain something I never brought up? I have no idea what musk said or what his claims are. How about you provide any citation? You brought up Musk as a strawman.
You’ve multiple times claimed the Twitter files are a “nothing burger”…
The truth is that there is concrete evidence of the Biden administration, pressuring media companies to sensor specific posts about Covid that they considered harmful to the narrative. Direct first amendment violations.
You seem to not give any indication that you can have read Weiss or Taibbi’s articles.
Jack Dorsey admitted it was true. So did Zuckerberg. Wild position you seem to have forced yourself into.
It did before the internet. See Marsh v. Alabama where publicly accessible ( private sidewalk) on private property was ruled the people there still could exercise 1A rights and could not be trespassed for doing so even if the owners forbid it.
How does freedom of speech allow you to walk somewhere you have been forbidden from walking? Does that mean you can just go into any building you want and use your 1A rights to not be arrested?
You can read the case. Basically it was a privately owned public space that they could have been otherwise trespassed from, but not for the reason of their speech. Since the reason for the trespass was their speech, it was prohibited. They were not otherwise "forbidden" from walking there were it not they expressed something that was disapproved of.
A weak analogy (I know analogy are never allowed here because "they're not the same") is that you can fire someone at will. Unless it turns out you fired them because they are black (yes I know being black is much different than expressing an opinion). It didn't mean you can't fire them at will, just that you couldn't for that specific protected reason.
Although at this point we're well well past the goalpost of "Freedom of speech has literally never prevented a private company from controlling the content on its platform" and down into the weeds of how it happened. The case clearly prevented the company from fully controlling the content of its sidewalk platform.
"private company"
Ah you mean an app that the US forced to be sold to a private company that certainly agreed behind the scenes to certain terms of the government?
Yeah.. completely independent private company...