Twitter’s Legal Team Has Been An Aggressive Defender Of Free Speech; Will That Continue Under Musk?

from the actual-free-speech dept

For all the talk of how Elon Musk wanted to buy Twitter to make it more supportive of free speech, there remain a ton of questions about what it will actually mean in practice. I’ve explained why his conception of free speech is incredibly naïve and his ideas around content moderation are not just outdated but counterproductive. Unfortunately, when most people talk about Twitter and “free speech” it’s the content moderation aspects that they’re referring to.

But, back here in reality, Twitter’s actual role in supporting free speech and the 1st Amendment often plays out quite differently: in court. Twitter’s legal team has been one of the most aggressive (if not the single most aggressive) companies in defending the privacy and free speech rights of its users. From early on, when various entities both private and public have sought to unmask anonymous Twitter users, the company has gone out of its way to defend the right to anonymity and to push back on questionable subpoenas that seek to unmask people over 1st Amendment protected speech.

The company also spent years fighting for its own 1st Amendment rights to reveal when governments demand information from companies, something it chose to do alone, after all the other big internet companies reached a settlement with the DOJ over what they would reveal regarding government demands for information.

Those are just the tip of the iceberg of the legal efforts that Twitter has been involved in to protect actual free speech/1st Amendment concerns. The company has always been extremely proactive in defending what the 1st Amendment actually protects.

Will the legal team continue to do so under Musk? One hopes so, but it now becomes much more of an open question. Given Musk’s statements to date about free speech, he seems more focused on the content moderation side of things than the actual 1st Amendment issues at play. Indeed, one of the changes that Musk has pushed for, to “authenticate all real humans”, works directly against this history.

Even if the plan is not to force a “real names” policy on Twitter users, but rather just for Twitter to know the real identity of all its users, that still creates massive risks — especially for people who are already at risk or marginalized. We’ve seen over and over again how thin-skinned rich and powerful users have sought to subpoena Twitter to seek out and identify online critics. Beyond going to court to defend the privacy and 1st Amendment anonymity rights of these users, Twitter also could (in the past) more credibly note that it doesn’t have certain information about many of those users, and might not have their real names.

But if Musk moves forward with “authenticating all real humans” not only will it now carry much more of that information, but it will make it a much bigger target for people who are seeking to unmask critics on Twitter — including foreign state actors. And that’s not even touching on how it will also make this “authentication” database a hacking target. It’s much easier to protect information you don’t have, yet Musk now appears to want that information.

And, frankly, Musk’s own history regarding such things is not encouraging. It wasn’t that long ago that Elon Musk was accused of trying to destroy a Tesla whistleblower and doing some fairly questionable things in the process:

The security manager at the Gigafactory, an ex-military guy with a high-and-tight haircut named Sean Gouthro, has filed a whistleblower report with the SEC. Gouthro says Tesla’s security operation behaved unethically in its zeal to nail the leaker. Investigators, he claims, hacked into Tripp’s phone, had him followed, and misled police about the surveillance. Gouthro says that Tripp didn’t sabotage Tesla or hack anything and that Musk knew this and sought to damage his reputation by spreading misinformation.

The story gets pretty crazy from there. After Tripp was interrogated and then fired, all sorts of data was leaked about him in the press. Tripp emailed Musk directly to complain, and Musk told him “threatening me only makes it worse for you.” And then an “anonymous threat” supposedly came in that Tripp might shoot up the Tesla gigafactory, leading to law enforcement hunting down Tripp — effectively SWATing him as a potential shooter.

After Gouthro had called the sheriff, he made a second call—to the private investigators he says Tesla kept on retainer, asking them to find Tripp. The PIs found Tripp before the police did, tracking him to the Nugget casino in Reno. Gouthro says his boss told him not to tell the cops that Tesla had Tripp followed.

Meanwhile, Musk emailed a reporter at the Guardian: “I was just told that we received a call at the Gigafactory that he was going to come back and shoot people,” Musk wrote. “I hope you all are safe,” the reporter replied.

A sheriff’s deputy, Tony Dosen, met Tripp on the street outside the casino. Body cam footage shows Tripp shaking and crying as he walked up to the police. He said he didn’t have a gun. Then he sat down on a park bench and started telling the police what had been going on since he’d clumsily attempted to blow the whistle on one of the world’s richest and most famous men.

There are some other similar stories that raise questions about Musk’s actual commitment to free speech as well. It’s not in the US, but Tesla has filed defamation claims against Chinese citizens who raised concerns about its cars. Musk also once called the boss of a vocal critic of Tesla, causing that person to shut down their Twitter account. He also has a long history of firing whistleblowers or critics within the company, then trying to silence them. And, as we’ve discussed before, he once banned an investor/journalist from buying a Tesla for merely criticizing the long wait to get a Tesla event started.

It’s difficult to believe that a Musk-led Twitter will do the hard work of standing up to such attempts by others when Musk may have been engaged in those kinds of attacks himself in the past.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: tesla, twitter

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Twitter’s Legal Team Has Been An Aggressive Defender Of Free Speech; Will That Continue Under Musk?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
420 Comments
Drew Wilson (user link) says:

Re: Authenticating Real Humans

Honestly, if Twitter demands something like a physical address or other personal information, I would just tell them to go ahead and delete my account. Even if my worries about Musk turning Twitter into a right wing echo chamber somehow doesn’t come to fruition (that’s a big “if” in my books), that alone would be more than enough to convince me that it’s not worth maintaining a Twitter account.

What’s more is that I think that would be the position of a number of people as well, not just me.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Speaking of zero self awareness

Bravely bold Sir koby
Rode forth from the internet.
He was not afraid to die,
Oh brave Sir koby.
He was not at all afraid
To be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir koby.
He was not in the least bit scared
To be mashed into a pulp.
Or to have his eyes gouged out,
And his elbows broken.
To have his kneecaps split
And his body burned away,
And his limbs all hacked and mangled
Brave Sir koby.
His head smashed in
And his heart cut out
And his liver removed
And his bowls unplugged
And his nostrils raped
And his bottom burnt off
And his penis
“That’s, that’s enough music for now lads, there’s dirty work afoot.”
Brave Sir koby ran away.
(“No!”)
Bravely ran away away.
(“I didn’t!”)
When danger reared it’s ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
(“I never!”)
Yes, brave Sir koby turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
(“You’re lying!”)
Swiftly taking to his feet,

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

That makes disturbing sense

Given the actions listed in the final paragraph my first thought is that he wants to ‘authenticate’ all users so that they can be harassed at will should they displease him or someone else powerful.

Even giving him the benefit of the doubt though that’s still a horrible idea that’s likely to drive a good chunk of users off and prevent many others from signing up in the first place, from those living in countries where questioning the government can be ‘hazardous’ to your health to minorities who rightly fear their online posts that would out them being linked to their offline identities, and even just those that don’t feel like adding their personal information to the hacker-bait such a system would create.

If he’s trying to trim down the user count mandatory authentication for all users is a great way to do that, but if that’s not his goal someone with experience really needs to sit him down and more importantly he needs to listen to them.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Projection, just like I said. You’re a gay guy who clearly likes to give head, going by your projected accusation, and so you assume that every other guy in the world is gay and likes to give head. FYI, I’m gay too, but I prefer mutual masturbation over giving head. That means if I was to project as you do, then I could accuse you of regularly participating in circle jerks. As for homophobia, that’s your schtick, not mine. By focusing on my response as an example of homophobia, you made the presumption that I’m straight, completely elided an important facet of my identity as well as my status as a member of the LGBT+ community.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Identiy

Identity, that is the problem. Its not your identity. Its part of who you are but it is not you. To many cluster B psychopaths like yourself anoint yourself to speak for our community.

P.S. I’m a top that is why I immediately saw Stephen sissy traits because I like to fuck sissies. Its no more projection than being able to spot a slut.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Kaleberg says:

Is anyone even slightly surprised?

Musk has been rather obvious and open about why he wants to own Twitter and where he wants to take it. His statements about wanting to make the algorithm more transparent and open raise the question of transparent for and open to whom? Twitter is the communications medium of establishment journalism. It is the “official word”, so much like control of the algorithm for Weibo in China, control of the algorithm for Twitter is extremely valuable.

Musk had a mentor on this, Rupert Murdoch, and man of similar ideology and means. Cable news and its viewers are aging. The market for cable news has matured. Twitter is the new medium, and likely to follow a similar path.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Verified

Indeed, one of the changes that Musk has pushed for, to “authenticate all real humans”, works directly against this history.

One of the common objections to free speech is “russian bots”, and the fear that they might spread “disinformation” or “influence an election”. If automated foreign messaging can be stopped, it could not only fight against commercial spam, but also uphold the legitimacy of controversial speech.

Calm down, little censor. It’s just a lot of people disagreeing with you. It’s not an army of russian bots.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Naughty Autie says:

Re:

If automated foreign messaging can be stopped, it could not only fight against commercial spam, but also uphold the legitimacy of controversial speech.

And how, exactly, does users of social media exposing themselves to the risk of being doxxed work towards that goal? Enquiring minds want to know.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Verifying that a user is human is not the same as collecting and storing personal information for an indefinite amount of time.

Except it kinda does. Someone can build a bot to get around CAPTCHAs and shit; they can’t build a bot to get around sharing your state/federal ID for verification.

I’m just saying that it has a free speech upside

Only if you like the idea of marginalized people, whistleblowers, and otherwise anonymous hecklers of famous people (including Elon Musk) potentially being doxxed. Otherwise it’s a recipe for disaster that even you should be able to see coming regardless of your political affiliation.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Who would want any of that?

Only if you like the idea of marginalized people, whistleblowers, and otherwise anonymous hecklers of famous people (including Elon Musk) potentially being doxxed. Otherwise it’s a recipe for disaster that even you should be able to see coming regardless of your political affiliation.

Balderdash, I mean even assuming it was possible for someone to gain access to a digital system that they don’t have legitimate credentials to(and how crazy would things have to be for that to be possible?) what conceivable reason would a theoretical hacker have to want access to a massive database of sensitive personal information sufficient to positively identify someone and/or link their posts to their real identity?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

If automated foreign messaging can be stopped, it could not only fight against commercial spam, but also uphold the legitimacy of controversial speech.

And if that authentication happens to out whistleblowers, anonymous critics of powerful people, and marginalized persons who rely on some form of anonymity to communicate effectively on the Internet⁠—all of whom could be subject to all sorts of nasty repercussions because of being outed like that⁠—well, what’s the harm in that~?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Strange, the dogs are acting up again

If automated foreign messaging can be stopped, it could not only fight against commercial spam, but also uphold the legitimacy of controversial speech.

Which ‘controversial speech’ would that be, and please, be specific.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

If a conservative reposts the video, now it needs to be censored for disagreement.

It’s less about reposting and more about distorting what was said in an attempt to score cheap political points. Also they haven’t been censored⁠—they can still go to whatever site will have them and post all their bullshit there. Hell, they hadn’t even been dinged by Twitter for anything, last I checked.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

sumgai (profile) says:

Re: I'll give it....

…. two months before the exodus can no longer be ignored, or written off as “a bunch of whiners”, etc.

I’ll give Twitter in general 6 months, and it’s a ghost of its former self. The only ones left will be the journalists looking for things to report, three-letter government agencies scoping out potential targets, and those whom Bill Gaines used to call “the usual gang of idiots”.

Those estimates were before I read TFS. Now, I’ll cut them in half.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen says:

Re: Re:

Nevertheless, people think about what they’ve personally experienced. Only the tiniest handful of people are affected by lawsuits trying to curb their speech. Lots of people have had comments moderated away, or have seen other people’s comments moderated away. That’s what they’re going to think about when people talk about free speech.

Again, remember that the free speech of the platforms is not the free speech of their users. When people are prevented from speaking, their free speech has been impeded, regardless of how many other people are happy with that and whether the platform has the legal right to do it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

When people are prevented from speaking, their free speech has been impeded

“free speech” does not mean, and has never meant, the right to commandeer private property in pursuit of your goal of having a larger audience.

So, no, their free speech has not been “impeded.”

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen says:

Re: Re: Re:2

That is the same argument that universities make when they set up “free speech zones” where no one will hear the speech.

From the point of view of the person who has been silenced on a platform that is hosting ing the speech of literal millions of people, their free speech has indeed been impeded.

Again and again, you confuse and conflate the free speech of platforms with the free speech of users. Just because the platforms have the right to silence their users does not mean that their users haven’t been silenced.

The fundamental aspect of free speech is the ability to speak your mind without being silenced. Not to be immune from consequences, not to be immune from criticism, just not to be silenced. When a platform chooses to silence opinions, it is being destructive of free speech.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The fundamental aspect of free speech is the ability to speak your mind without being silenced.

You omitted the critical continuations of that idea, and that is “by the government”. Nowhere does the constitution say that you can demand that others help you to spread your speech, which is what you ilk keep on demanding.

Also, given your performance on other threads, your presence on big social media sites is about as welcome as a dose of the pox.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Your natural right to free speech does not give you the right to swear at my children in my private property. If you don’t like that, my neighbour down the street allows people to swear at his kids in his house. You can go there.
TL;DR? If you don’t like the policies of one platform, find another.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Extrapolation to Absurdity

Extrapolation to Absurdity if it wasn’t for fallacious arguments your would have no arguments at all.

Normal People: ‘You censored a legitimate news story about the corruption of a presidential candidate through bribes given to his son.’

You the Psychopaths: ‘You want grown men to scream profanities at my children in their house!’

You are certifiably insane.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Two things.

  1. The hypothetical situation Autie gave was to show you the meaning of the phrase “your rights end where another person’s rights begin”, so don’t blame them for your ignorance.
  2. Unless Twitter forced the story off the New York Post website, they didn’t censor shit⁠—and it’s not like they stopped literally everyone else on Twitter from linking to or discussing the story.
Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Extrapolation to absurdity. If it wasn’t for fallacious arguments, you would have no argument at all.

You the psychopath: “You censored a legitimate news story about the corruption of a presidential candidate through bribes given to his son.”

Reasonable people: “If you want to scream profanities at people, do it where that’s allowed.

You completely lack empathy and theory of mind; therefore, you are a psychopath.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You omitted the critical continuations of that idea, and that is “by the government”

That’s the first amendment, not free speech.

the First amendment does not create the right of free speech, it protects your right from the government.

The right exists with or without the constitution.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

In that case what gives you the right to demand that somebody else distributes your speech for you? A social media site banning you does not stop you speaking, only but only stops you using the site to distribute your words.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6

In that case what gives you the right to demand that somebody else distributes your speech for you? A social media site banning you does not stop you speaking, only but only stops you using the site to distribute your words.

No is demanding twitter do something.

People are pointing out that Twitter gladly censored stuff and that is not supporting free speech and that Musk’s plan to allow more speech is better for freedom of speech.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Which is a misrepresentation,

In what way do you think it is a misrepresentation? Twitter does censor. Censorship does not require government action.

and does not address the point, why should Twitter be forced

No one has forced Twitter to do anything. Elon has bought twitter so he can change it because it will be his to do what he wants. Twitter wasn’t forced to sell either.

or badgered into carrying speech that they do not want to.

Badgered? Do you mean “Why should others use their free speech to criticize Twitter”?

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

Twitter does censor.

Twitter keeps people from speaking their mind in a way where those people can’t share (or don’t feel comfortable sharing) their speech through any distribution channel for it? Wow! I’d love to know who Twitter actually did this to, by golly! Surely you have an example or three!

…because you’re going to need them if you actually expect anyone here besides your fellow trolls and idiots to take your bullshit seriously.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

Twitter keeps people from speaking their mind in a way where those people can’t share (or don’t feel comfortable sharing) their speech through any distribution channel for it?

I’m sorry you are too stupid to know what the word censor means, here’s a definition for you:

to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

Twitter does that. Twitter banned a newspaper for spreading a factual story because it was inconvenient. Twitter regularly bans people for saying things they don’t like.

That is censorship.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Twitter banned a newspaper for spreading a factual story because it was inconvenient.

No, it didn’t. To my knowledge, Twitter didn’t even suspend the account for the New York Post. The Post still has an account today and Twitter users can still post the link that was at the center of the controversy⁠—and discuss the story itself⁠—all they want.

Unless you can prove Twitter is actively suppressing speech outside of Twitter: Fuck off with your bullshit arguments.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12

No, it didn’t. To my knowledge, Twitter didn’t even suspend the account for the New York Post.

Oof, I’d hate to be as ignorant as you. Here’s an article about it and I’ll quote the relevant section:

Twitter suspended The New York Post’s account for six tweets that linked to the story and blocked links to the story in question

Twitter acts as arbiter of truth and a censor.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Twitter suspended The New York Post’s account for six tweets that linked to the story and blocked links to the story in question

Either I’d forgotten about it or I wasn’t aware in the first place. In any case: Fair enough, thank you for the citation of fact.

Twitter acts as arbiter of truth and a censor

…on Twitter. If you’re getting your news exclusively from Twitter, you’ve got bigger problems than Twitter deciding whether a link to a specific news story goes against its rules.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10

“To moderate” is synonymous with “to censor”, especially when, as in twitter’s case, “to moderate” results in them censoring a news publication for reporting.

Criticizing a place for censorship is not badgering, it’s called criticizing.

You complaint about people wanting twitter to change it’s policy is rather funny given that the context here is that Musk bought twitter, plans to do what he wants, and you and the other censor-happy folks here are complaining in the hopes he changes his mind.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

“To moderate” is synonymous with “to censor”, especially when, as in twitter’s case, “to moderate” results in them censoring a news publication for reporting.

Holy shit, Twitter erased the story from the Post? Wow! I’d sure love to know how they did that!

…because you’d be the first to prove they did it, because Twitter didn’t censor shit.

Criticizing a place for censorship is not badgering

It is when they aren’t engaged in censorship and you want them to allow speech on their service that they otherwise wouldn’t allow so they won’t be labelled “censors”.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

Even if I were to agree that what Twitter does is censorship⁠—and I don’t, for the record⁠—it only applies to Twitter. As I’ve said before: Donald Trump got banned from Twitter, and he can still say whatever the fuck he wants on whatever platform will have him, so saying “Twitter censored Donald Trump” would be implying that Twitter prevented him from speaking his mind anywhere when we all know that isn’t the case.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

You really think allowing more/all legal speech is “better for freedom of speech”, huh? Then I have a challenge for you.

Go to 4chan’s /b/ board and stay there for one uninterrupted hour. You don’t have to view individual threads; you need only browse the front page of that board and refresh it for updates once you’re done reading the page in its current state. And to make sure you get the full /b/ experience, here are the ground rules for this challenge:

  • You must read the text of every post you see⁠.
  • You must keep all images visible at all times and view as many of them as possible at full size.
  • You must view every video file that you come across in its entirety.
  • You must not use any adblockers, wordfiltering userscripts, browser extensions, or any other tool that allows you to hide offensive content.
  • The only exception to these rules applies only to any CSAM you may run across as you browse. (This is 4chan, after all.)

If you can last the full hour without feeling disgusted with yourself or humanity⁠—without wondering why anyone would want to host that speech, post that speech, experience that speech or make others experience that speech⁠—only then will you have earned the right to argue in favor of turning the entire Internet into 4chan. And if you can’t? Well…don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8

You are pretty sheltered if you think 4chan is the worst of the realm of legal speech.

There should be more places where the only restrictions on speech are those limited by US law.

I want idiots like you, whether they are racists or not, to be able to say whatever they want. That is infinitely better than censorship.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

You are pretty sheltered if you think 4chan is the worst of the realm of legal speech.

I know there are worse places. But 4chan is what one might call “the least worst”, at least when comparing it to its far more offensive offspring.

There should be more places where the only restrictions on speech are those limited by US law.

And when those places are overrun by spam and gore and porn and all the other kind of horrendous content that trolls and assholes love to share with sociopathic glees, and those places all become worse than 4chan because everyone with some goddamn sense left for places with moderation policies in place, are you prepared to hang out in those places? Are you prepared to have that shit thrust in your face on a regular basis every day for however long that place exists?

The point of that challenge I posited to you was to prove how ridiculous it is to expect that mass amounts of people would accept the rest of the Internet turning into /b/. You might be able to survive an hour of /b/ with your soul and your sanity intact. That doesn’t mean everyone else will⁠—or will want to even try.

Services like Twitter have rules for a reason. That you want them to jettison those rules in some ridiculous attempt to turn Twitter into /b/ says more about you than it will ever say about Twitter.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Simple solution dont go to /b/.

My whole point, if you’d bothered to read my post and reply in good faith, was that some people⁠—like the person to whom I replied⁠—seem to think there’s some value in turning a service like Twitter into /b/, whereas most people would probably leave Twitter if that happened.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

No, because then you’ll have to do the work of weeding out spam and bigots and all the other speech Twitter would moderate (or attempt to moderate, at least) before it reaches your timelines. Black Twitter users shouldn’t have to be subjected to racial slurs as a means of blocking that speech (and the users who post it) if Twitter can block it before Black users are subjected to it. That’s the whole point of moderation: It’s to act in the best interests of the broader community, even if that happens to ruffle some feathers (or piss off assholes who want to be assholes without facing any consequences for it). Moderation isn’t censorship⁠—it’s community curation, for better or for worse.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The fundamental aspect of free speech is the ability to speak your mind without being silenced.

No law gives you the right to use someone else’s private property without their permission for the sake of speaking your mind. Either cite a law that proves me wrong or fuck off with your bullshit argument.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen says:

Re: Re: Re:4

There is no right to use someone else’s property to speak freely. But that simply means that the property owner has the right to impede people’s freedom of speech. The silenced people have had their freedom of speech impeded.

The point of freedom of speech is to allow all ideas to be broached and discussed, praised and condemned, without silencing them. It’s not to come up with a formalism that says government silencing is bad and private silencing is good.

And I believe we have reached a point where we are in total agreement about something; I too would rather you get COVID-19 than associate with me!

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The silenced people have had their freedom of speech impeded.

No, they haven’t⁠—because they haven’t been silenced. They’ve been told “we don’t do that here” and made to leave if they keep trying. Being asked to leave private property you don’t own when your speech has been deemed disruptive by the owners of that property (or recognized agents thereof) isn’t censorship. Claiming otherwise is another example of the “I have been silenced” fallacy in action.

The point of freedom of speech is to allow all ideas to be broached and discussed, praised and condemned, without silencing them.

Bigots are free to discuss their ideas in any place that will have them. Any place that won’t isn’t “silencing” bigots⁠—it’s trying to create as safe a space as possible for the people those bigots would likely attack. That doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights because the First Amendment protects both the freedom of speech and the freedom of association.

I too would rather you get COVID-19 than associate with me

You think this is funny, but it’s not, given what COVID-19 does to people. JFC, dude, have a heart.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen says:

Re: Re: Re:6

So it’s OK for you to say “If I had to choose between associating with Hyman Rosen and contracting COVID-19, I’ll take the viral disease.” but I have no heart for agreeing with you? The lack of self-awareness of the woke is monumental.

Creating “safe spaces” is antithetical to free speech. Private platforms can create spaces where they silence some opinions if they want to, but then it’s legitimate to criticize them for impeding free speech. But you want to have your cake and eat it too. Sorry, no.

And once again, as many times as needs saying, the 1st Amendment is not the be-all and end-all of free speech. Free speech is a concept. The 1st is an embodiment of that concept enacted against governments.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

So it’s OK for you to say “If I had to choose between associating with Hyman Rosen and contracting COVID-19, I’ll take the viral disease.” but I have no heart for agreeing with you?

I basically said “I’d rather die than associate with you”. You basically said “I hope you fucking die”. If you can’t see the difference in perspectives here, that’s on you.

Creating “safe spaces” is antithetical to free speech.

No, it isn’t, because “safe spaces” already exist. They’re called “homes”.

You’re allowed to determine what speech is and isn’t acceptable in your home. You’re allowed to kick someone out who says something you deemed unacceptable. You’re allowed to prevent that someone from coming back into your home regardless of whether they apologize.

The idea of the “safe space” as originally envisioned (before dipshits like you perverted the meaning) was essentially what the image I linked to said: They’re spaces meant to let people speak without fear of judgment not only for what they say, but for who they are. A “safe space” for queer people, for example, would let them be unabashedly queer and discuss their queereness without worrying about non-queer people harassing and insulting them. The whole point of a “safe space” was to give people who needed it room to speak without worrying about being shouted (or beaten) down for their speech. If anything, the original concept bolsters free speech by giving someone a space to speak their mind.

Then conservative assholes like you perverted the meaning of the phrase (as you always do with leftist/progressive terminology, e.g., “woke”) to mean “a little crib for whiny babies who can’t stand real talk like ‘fuck queer people’ because that’s real speech”.

Private platforms can create spaces where they silence some opinions if they want to, but then it’s legitimate to criticize them for impeding free speech.

Not really. If Twitter says “fuck off” and bans you, they’re not impeding your right to speak⁠—because your right to speak doesn’t include a right to an audience, a right to use a platform you don’t own, and a right to make other people listen. You can go to another platform and speak there; whether people follow you or don’t is their decision.

Free speech is a concept.

So is not being an asshole.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Lots of Laws

There are lot of laws that require that. We have discussed these laws. Must carry, Pruneyard, landlord tenant law etc.

You always extrapolate and reduce your arguments into absurd absolutes its actually not that cut and dry and there is lots of grey. You do this because you’re stupid and incapable of making nuanced arguments.

As said before Twitter and social media has put their private property to the public interest, as such they are subject to regulation by the public in so far as to the extent of that interest. If they wish to remove their property from that public control they need only remove their property from the public interest.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:5

As said before Twitter and social media has put their private property to the public interest, as such they are subject to regulation by the public in so far as to the extent of that interest. If they wish to remove their property from that public control they need only remove their property from the public interest.

Take it up with SCOTUS who says otherwise.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 You Are a Dipshit

That is not what Halleck says you dipshit. Mike is an idiot. He is a legal moron and he reads way more into Halleck than is there because of his personal and financial bias. All Halleck said was a local cable distributor is not a public square, not that it couldn’t be regulated by law.

Again extrapolation to absurdity.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:9

It’s almost like you haven’t read the opinion. It specifically addresses that the conclusion goes beyond just local cable distributors:

To avoid that conclusion, the producers widen the lens and contend that the relevant function here is not simply the operation of public access channels on a cable system, but rather is more generally the operation of a public forum for speech. And according to the producers, operation of a public forum for speech is a traditional, exclusive public function.

That analysis mistakenly ignores the threshold state-action question. When the government provides a forum for speech (known as a public forum), the government may be constrained by the First Amendment, meaning that the government ordinarily may not exclude speech or speakers from the forum on the basis of viewpoint, or sometimes even on the basis of content. See, e.g., Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 547, 555 (1975) (private theater leased to the city); Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 93, 96 (1972) (sidewalks); Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 515–516 (1939) (streets and parks).

By contrast, when a private entity provides a forum for speech, the private entity is not ordinarily constrained by the First Amendment because the private entity is not a state actor. The private entity may thus exercise editorial discretion over the speech and speakers in the forum. This Court so ruled in its 1976 decision in Hudgens v. NLRB. There, the Court held that a shopping center owner is not a state actor subject to First Amendment requirements such as the public forum doctrine. 424 U. S., at 520–521; see also Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 569–570 (1972); Central Hardware Co. v. NLRB, 407 U.S. 539, 547 (1972); Alliance for Community Media, 56 F. 3d, at 121–123.

The Hudgens decision reflects a commonsense principle: Providing some kind of forum for speech is not an activity that only governmental entities have traditionally performed. Therefore, a private entity who provides a forum for speech is not transformed by that fact alone into a state actor. After all, private property owners and private lessees often open their property for speech. Grocery stores put up community bulletin boards. Comedy clubs host open mic nights. As Judge Jacobs persuasively explained, it “is not at all a near-exclusive function of the state to provide the forums for public expression, politics, information, or entertainment.” 882 F. 3d, at 311 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).

In short, merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 You Are A Dipshit

You clearly don’t understand a thing you are reading.

There is a difference between being a “State Actor” and having property in the “public interest.” In the Halleck case the plaintiff was arguing that the actions of the cable provider amounted to state action.

If it was state action the 1st Amendment would apply.

However, that does not mean that Manhattan Community Access Corp could not be regulated to require access. If there was such a New York law applying to Manhattan Community Access Corp then Halleck could sue under that law.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

There is a difference between being a “State Actor” and having property in the “public interest.”

And dipshits like you seem to think that there shouldn’t be a difference⁠⁠—that Twitter should only ever moderate according to the First Amendment, so that all legal speech would be allowed on Twitter even if Twitter would otherwise decline to host it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Its An Important Difference

Its a very important difference. Its the difference between Constitutional prohibition and regulatory law. Now barring some collusion between Twitter etc. and the government you cant claim Twitter is a state actor and make a 1st Amendment Case. (although recent reports about the DOJ working with Twitter to suppress the Hunter Laptop Story call their “not state actor” status into question)

However, its since thier property is put to the public interest its perfectly legal for the government to regulate Twitter and require that they do X, Y, and Z including host content they don’t agree with.

In Halleck there was no such regulation so its strictly a 1st Amendment state actor case. It didn’t in anyway prohibit such regulation should the state so decide to enact it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

since th[ei]r property is put to the public interest its perfectly legal for the government to regulate Twitter and require that they do X, Y, and Z

…within the limits of state law, federal law, and the Constitution. The government can make Twitter adhere to non-discrimination protections, but it can’t make Twitter “host content they don’t agree with” because that would spit in the face of the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and free association.

A local supermarket can put up a public bulletin board for people to pin whatever flyers they want. But that doesn’t remove the right of the supermarket⁠—a privately owned business⁠—to say “no, this isn’t something we’re going to let stay up” to a given flyer and yank it down. The same goes for Twitter: It can refuse to host or delete any given third party speech it wants, and no law or court precedent⁠—including your precious-ass Pruneyard⁠—says otherwise.

Prove me wrong or shut the fuck up.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Here’s the thing you are missing, declaring that social medias property is in the public interest and therefore should be regulated to carry all speech makes them no different from a state actor providing a public forum since the only way to regulate speech and free association in that context is flipping the 1A on its head for social media.

This is why the opinion is written as it is with the explicit examples given why private property doesn’t make their owners state actors, to forestall what you are suggesting.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13

You have Halleck so you are tying to pound a square peg into a round hole. Halleck does not apply no matter how much mental gymnastics you attempt.

Are you sure about that? Because a decision in the 9th Circuit says otherwise:

Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment. …

… Just last year, the Court held that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.” … The Internet does not alter this state action requirement of the First Amendment. …

PragerU’s claim that YouTube censored PragerU’s speech faces a formidable threshold hurdle: YouTube is a private entity. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government—not a private party—from abridging speech.

… In Halleck[,] the Supreme Court considered whether a private entity that operates a public access channel on a cable system is a state actor. … The plaintiffs tested a theory that resembled PragerU’s approach, claiming that a private entity becomes a state actor through its “operation” of the private property as “a public forum for speech.” … The Court rejected this argument. Such a rule would eviscerate the state action doctrine’s distinction between government and private entities because “all private property owners and private lessees who open their property for speech would be subject to First Amendment constraints.” … Instead, the Court reaffirmed that “merely hosting speech by others is not a traditional, exclusive public function and does not alone transform private entities into state actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”

Importantly, private property does not “lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes.” … YouTube may be a paradigmatic public square on the Internet, but it is “not transformed” into a state actor solely by “provid[ing] a forum for speech.”

… Private parties like “[g]rocery stores” and “[c]omedy clubs” have “open[ed] their property for speech.” … YouTube does not perform a public function by inviting public discourse on its property. “The Constitution by no means requires such an attenuated doctrine of dedication of private property to public use.” … Otherwise “every retail and service establishment in the country” would be bound by constitutional norms.

In Marsh, the Court held that a private entity operating a company town is a state actor and must abide by the First Amendment. … But in Lloyd Corp. and Hudgens, the Court unequivocally confined Marsh’s holding to the unique and rare context of “company town[s]” and other situations where the private actor “perform[s] the full spectrum of municipal powers.”

YouTube does not fit the bill. Unlike the company town in Marsh, YouTube merely operates a platform for usergenerated video content; it does not “perform[] all the necessary municipal functions,” … nor does it operate a digital business district that has “all the characteristics of any other American town[”.]

YouTube also does not conduct a quintessential public function through regulation of speech on a public forum. … To characterize YouTube as a public forum would be a paradigm shift.

… PragerU’s attempt to foist a “public forum” label on YouTube by claiming that YouTube declared itself a public forum also fails. YouTube’s representation that it is committed to freedom of expression, or a single statement made by its executive before a congressional committee that she considers YouTube to be a “neutral public fora,” cannot somehow convert private property into a public forum. Whether a property is a public forum is not a matter of election by a private entity. We decline to subscribe to PragerU’s novel opt-in theory of the First Amendment.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18 That Is Because You Are Stupid

That is because you are stupid. The phrase Hinkle uses compelling state interest is for all tense and purposes interchangeable with public interest. The strict scrutiny Hinkle applied requires a “compelling interest.” The question of who has the larger interest state or public is semantic.

Hinkle doesn’t have a leg to stand on especially with the judges he drew. Of course the state and public have a compelling interest in assuring that political candidates are not censored in what the Supreme Court of the United States of America has already unanimously declared the Modern Public SquarePackingham v. North Carolina 2017 (a case you like to ignore FYI).

And since you dipshits in Silicon Valley insisted your TOS had to be legal contracts now the states have to adjudicate all those contract cases in state courts which costs the taxpayers money and clogs up the court system. So again there is a compelling interest into regulate those contracts.

‘No compelling state interest’ is Judge Hinkle’s go to argument. He is like Sargent Shultz “I see nothing!” But on appeal he almost always loses because he like you is a dipshit.

I don’t know why you fucking morons keep judge shopping this dipshit. Yeah you are going to win an injunction from him but his opinions are such crap you are almost always guaranteed to lose on appeal to the 11ht circuit.

There are some very good Clinton judges in the Middle District of Florida you could shop. They aren’t as guaranteed a decision as Judge Schultz and drawing them in the 15 judge district isn’t as easy as drawing Judge Schultz but at least they will write a decision that stands a snowballs chance in hell at the 11th Circuit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Judge Hinkle

This is the problem with listening to someone as obviously stupid is Mike Manchild. The crux of Judge Hinkle’s decision in the Florida social media law isn’t ‘its unconstutional case closed’ like Mike likes to put it because he is stupid.

The crux of judge Hinkle’s decision is that there is no valid public interest. Thats the legal question not if the state has the power or not.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

Gonna knock out two replies in one.

That’s how all regulation the impedes in the rights of the private are enacted

That doesn’t explain how the government can force Twitter to carry third party speech it otherwise wouldn’t host.

The crux of judge Hinkle’s decision is that there is no valid public interest. Thats the legal question not if the state has the power or not.

Neither does that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:19

People do look at the speech being carried by a social media site and use that to judge where they want to join in or not. Therefore what speech Twitter allows affects the number of users they have, how long those users spend on the twitter, and therefore twitters bottom line.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:19

Same reason the California shopping mall does you dipshit.

The restrictions in Pruneyard only apply to areas of a mall that are analogous to public gathering places (e.g., food courts). They doesn’t apply to places in malls that aren’t similarly analogous, nor do they apply to the stores in those malls (which can still kick out unruly patrons). Those restrictions don’t have any effect on social media services because there is no such equivalent space on social media services⁠—to use a fitting analogy, Twitter is a store, not a mall.

You’re doing a really bad job at this shit, son.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:21

What the fuck is social media then?

An interactive web service.

You are aware of Packingham v. North Carolina which says unequivocally that social media is the modern public square?

And Halleck says that opening one’s private property to the general public does not make that property public. Saying Twitter is “the modern public square” doesn’t make it public property regardless of how many times you say it.

Twitter is legally allowed to say “you can’t say that here” and boot someone who breaks that rule. You have yet to prove otherwise.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:21

You are aware of Packingham v. North Carolina which says unequivocally that social media is the modern public square?

Packingham said that in the context of not allowing the state to interfere with those sites. Not in denying a private operator the right to manage its property how it wants.

Packingham works against your argument, not for it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:22 Packingham

Packingham said that in the context of not allowing a person to access social media. It was absolutely not in the context of the state interfering with those sites.

Stop lying you asshole.

You have Packingham. You have Halleck. Packingham was about social media being a modern public square. Halleck was about a local access cable channel being not being a public square.

So we have a recent case that specifically addressed social media and a unanimous decision that declared social media a “modern pubic square.”

And what do you like to cite? The case about local access TV.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:23

Packingham was about social media being a modern public square. Halleck was about a local access cable channel being not being a public square.

And neither one said “social media being the modern equivalent of the public square means the government can make social media host any and all legally protected speech”. You can’t cite a single law, statute, or “common law” court precedent that says social media is legally obligated to host all legal speech and you fucking know it⁠—because if you could have cited it, you would have already cited it.

But hey, I’m a bettin’ man. I’ll bet you ten bux that you can find that citation. Remember, the law/statute/court precedent you cite must be directly on point: It must say the government can force any social media service and/or any analogous online service (e.g., old-school forums), regardless of all other factors, to host any and all legally protected speech regardless of what speech that service would normally choose to host or not host.

Do you want ten bux, bitch? Go fetch your citation.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:24 Marsh v. Alabama (1946)

Marsh v. Alabama (1946)

“We do not agree that the corporation’s property interests settle the question.2 The State urges in effect that the corporation’s right to control the inhabitants of Chickasaw is coextensive with the right of a homeowner to regulate the conduct of his guests. We can not accept that contention. Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it”

Waits for Stephen to frantically search for the existence of caveats.

Me: The SCOTUS has said sometimes private property can be forced to respect individual rights.

Stephen: No the supreme court said they can only do that some times.

Me: Did you eat paint chips as a kid?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:25

Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it

In the ruling in Prager University v. Google LLC, the 9th Circuit handled this argument with ease:

PragerU argues that the pervasiveness of YouTube binds it to the First Amendment because Marsh teaches that “[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the … constitutional rights of those who use it.” … PragerU’s reliance on Marsh is not persuasive. In Marsh, the Court held that a private entity operating a company town is a state actor and must abide by the First Amendment. … But in Lloyd Corp. and Hudgens, the Court unequivocally confined Marsh’s holding to the unique and rare context of “company town[s]” and other situations where the private actor “perform[s] the full spectrum of municipal powers.” …

YouTube does not fit the bill. Unlike the company town in Marsh, YouTube merely operates a platform for user- generated video content; it does not “perform[] all the necessary municipal functions,” … nor does it operate a digital business district that has “all the characteristics of any other American town[.]” …

YouTube also does not conduct a quintessential public function through regulation of speech on a public forum. … To characterize YouTube as a public forum would be a paradigm shift.

So this isn’t the citation you needed, which makes this a big fuckin’ Whammy. You don’t get ten bux from me.

Find something directly on point to the argument that hasn’t been contradicted by another SCOTUS ruling (e.g., Marsh being outweighed by Lloyd Corp. and Hudgens). Remember: It must say the government can force any social media service and/or any analogous online service (e.g., old-school forums), regardless of all other factors, to host any and all legally protected speech regardless of what speech that service would normally choose to host or not host.

Go fetch.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17

The crux of judge Hinkle’s decision is that there is no valid public interest. Thats the legal question not if the state has the power or not.

Lol. No, that was not the test he used at all. I mean, jfc, can you not read? He did the proper “strict scrutiny” test, noted it failed. Then tried the intermediate scrutiny test, and found it also failed.

And based on the panel comments on the 11th circuit in today’s hearing, it sure sounds like they agree with Hinkle, not Florida.

Can’t wait for you to claim it doesn’t count because the 11th Circuit panel was all liberals or some nonsense like that.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18 Moron

You are the fucking moron. Who thought “protective order” “restraining order” and “prior restraint” were different things when they are all synonymous.

Strict Scrutiny is a 2 part test you dipshit.

  1. The act has to serve a compelling interest.
  2. It has to be nessacary.

You barely know tech, stop pretending to know law its laughable.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Actually, your argument that freedom of speech means being able to speak wherever you like without consequences for any offence you cause is an absolute. Projection much?
Also, as said before, stores and movie theatres have put their private property to the public interest. As a result, they are subject to regulation by the public in so far as to the extent of that interest. However, that doesn’t mean that security won’t escort you off the premises if you verbally abuse employees. Whether online or in meatspace, your rights are limited by the equal rights of others. What about that are you too obtuse to get?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

There are lot of laws that require that. We have discussed these laws. Must carry, Pruneyard, landlord tenant law etc.

Yes, and every example you’ve given has been ripped apart by people who know more about this shit than you do. I’m not going to even bother with the Kavanaugh copypasta this time.

You always extrapolate and reduce your arguments into absurd absolutes its actually not that cut and dry and there is lots of grey.

The hypotheticals I and others posit in these arguments seem absurd to you only because you’re eager to make services like Twitter host speech it normally wouldn’t. If you’d pull your head out of whatever troll’s ass you stuck it up first, you’d realize how absurd your bullshit sounds to people with actual knowledge.

Twitter and social media has put their private property to the public interest, as such they are subject to regulation by the public in so far as to the extent of that interest.

Again, I’m not going to break out the Kavanaugh copypasta, but one of the points he made in the ruling that I cite in that copypasta was, to put it in a way you might understand, “someone opening the doors of their private property to the public doesn’t make their property public”. Hell, even the Pruneyard ruling was eventually whittled down to the point where it applies only in areas of a mall that would count as public gathering spots⁠—something you’ve been told over and over but refuse to accept as actual fact (even though it is actual fact).

So let’s try this again, with one minor clarification:

No law gives you the right to use someone else’s private property without their permission for the sake of speaking your mind. Either cite a specific law that proves me wrong or fuck off with your bullshit argument.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

That is the same argument that universities make when they set up “free speech zones” where no one will hear the speech.

No. It’s not.

From the point of view of the person who has been silenced on a platform that is hosting ing the speech of literal millions of people, their free speech has indeed been impeded.

No. It hasn’t.

Again and again, you confuse and conflate the free speech of platforms with the free speech of users.

No. I don’t.

Just because the platforms have the right to silence their users does not mean that their users haven’t been silenced.

No, they have not been silenced.

The fundamental aspect of free speech is the ability to speak your mind without being silenced.

Without being silenced by the government. There are tons of businesses where you will be silenced and it will not stop your free speech. At all. No one but purely ignorant people think that getting kicked out of a restaurant for being rude is an attack on your free speech. No one but purely ignorant people think that getting kicked out of a theater for yelling insults is an attack on your free speech. No one but purely ignorant people think getting kicked off a social media platform for violating its rules is an attack on free speech.

It’s not.

When a platform chooses to silence opinions, it is being destructive of free speech.

It’s not. Only a very, very silly person would argue otherwise.

You are a very silly, very ignorant person.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Extrapolation to Absurdity

“Without being silenced by the government. There are tons of businesses where you will be silenced and it will not stop your free speech. At all. No one but purely ignorant people think that getting kicked out of a restaurant for being rude is an attack on your free speech. No one but purely ignorant people think that getting kicked out of a theater for yelling insults is an attack on your free speech. No one but purely ignorant people think getting kicked off a social media platform for violating its rules is an attack on free speech.”

Extrapolation to absurdity, your favorite logical fallacy. Censor legitimate news about Hunter Biden’s laptop and scream some hypothetical of people shouting obscenities in a restaurant. You are a real human piece of shit.

This is how you get ‘yelling fire in a crowded’ theater used a justification to prohibit anti-war protests.

You are an evil piece of shit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:7

To quote Wikipedia:

Tu quoque is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by attacking the opponent’s own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy.

Which is exactly the kind of ad hominem attack you like to engage in by accusing (presumably) straight guys of engaging in gay sexual activity. I repeat: every accusation a confession.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Nope

Tu quoque is not ad hominem. And I don’t say these things to discredit you. I say them to personal insult you and reflect my actual opinion of you. My opinion of you and hte rest of Mike’s Misfits is well earned. What is that you mother fuckers like to say “consequences” you pieces of shit dog pile and flag every opinion that doesn’t agree with your group narrative. You are pathetic scumbags and you deserve what you get.

My logical arguments are separate from the well earned insults I give you, you fucking human piece of shit.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Fuck Off

Fuck Off, yes “Public Houses” were the first public housing. Even today 10% of “public housing” according to HUD is privately owned rent controlled housing. Thats what Public Houses used to be so suck my fat cock.

Furthermore you are making these “your messed up” arguments on a TechBlog run by a dipshit hwo doesn’t know the difference between owning a spectrum license and owning a spectrum.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:11

A public house has always referred to an inn,tavern or hotel. Way back when that term came into use, those places were significant, as average rate of overland travel were about 20 miles a day. Public house is still used that way today, and is not the same as public housing, i.e. government owned housing, which is part of the more general rent controlled social housing.

As hotels etc rent rooms, and yes they were rent controlled, as they enabled travel and commerce back when a days overland travel was about 20 miles, or less with a heavy cart. That however does not make them public housing, which strictly speaking is government owned housing, otherwise known as council housing in the UK. Social housing is a broader term for rent controlled housing which includes privately owned rented housing.

Note however, even when applied to accommodation, public house and public housing refer to different things, temporary accommodation for travelers, and permanent accommodation for people.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Maths

We’ve been over this before.

If your ‘Public Houses were just hotels for tourists’ argument were to hold water that would mean that medieval England had lodging equiliviant to over 10% of its population.

For some perspective that state of Florida, one of the worlds biggest modern tourist destinations, has lodging equiliviant to 4.2% of its population.

Sorry Public Houses were one of the earliest attempts at public houses.

‘You want a license to sell alcohol and food. You got to offer rooms for the poor.’

That’s what they were.

You guys were as usual dipshits and didn’t know the history and consensus amongst idiots doesn’t’ make something true.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:13

In medieval times, traveling, more than about 10 miles from home meant an overnight stay somewhere. Visiting the nearest market town was an overnight stay for most people. This also meant that overland journeys took longer, and people did travel about, so proportionally more overnight accommodation for travelers was required.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Now You Are Just Reaching

Now you are just reaching. Again square peg round hole.

You: Ahah Public Houses are Pubs gotcha nothing to do with public housing.

Me: Public Houses were establishments required under English law to have X number of rooms at low rent to get a liquor license. Its one of the earliest known versions of rent controlled public housing.

You: Nuh uh … Puplice Housing cant be private!!!

Me: HUD says that today over 10% of all public housing is private and growing under Obama’s RAD program. Here are the links.

You: UGGGHHHH but those Public Houses were just hotels for travlers!!!

Me: Me 10% hotel lodging equal to of the population??? Even modern tourist destinations don’t come close to that.

You: ‘Pure speculation prove me wrong.’

Me: Fuck you I. Its over I won I don’t give a fuck what you speculate prove it mother fucker!.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:15

Just how far can you walk per day, carrying spare clothes, water,etc, and still be fit to repeat the exercise the next day?

Also, The Canterbury Tales are based on a real journey, regularly undertaken by many people on pilgrimage. Towns require feeding, and farmers need thing like boots and shoes.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Canterbury Tales? lol

Canterbury Tales let me get this straight a story of stories told by people on a pilgrimage somehow justifies your claim that the lodging such an extreme amount lodging was needed for relative locals?

You clearly aren’t going to do any research to back up your speculation so I’m not going to go over all 20 something story tellers in the Canterbury Tales.

These are people on a pilgrimage. Not locals going to town to get bread.

The cook is from Ware not a local.
The clerk is from Oxford not a local.

For fucks sake you are dumb.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:17

How to miss the point totally, the framework of the story is a real journey, undertaken by medieval pilgrims. It gives the timescale of a real journey of 90 miles.

Also, in medieval times, walking was the nor,al mode of travel, and that was mainly over rough paths. Making 3 miles an hour would be good going, and walking in the dark was rare. Town does not have to be that far away for an overnight stay to be part of a visit to the town.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:19

Just for your information, from the Wikipedia article on pubs,

A survey in 1577 of drinking establishment in England and Wales for taxation purposes[12] recorded 14,202 alehouses, 1,631 inns, and 329 taverns, representing one pub for every 187 people.

That statement cites:

Hanson, David J (May 2013). Boyle, Peter; Boffetta, Paolo; Lowenfels, Albert B; Burns, Harry; Brawley, Otis; Zatonski, Witold; Rehm, Jürgen (eds.). Historical evolution of alcohol consumption in society. Oxford University Press Scholarship Online. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199655786.001.0001. ISBN 9780199655786.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Again

Again you dipshits will insist you are correct when you were clearly and objectively wrong about like the history of Public Houses.

And at the same time on a blog called TechDirt wont even raise an eyebrow when the supposed expert you all follow doesn’t know the difference between a owning a spectrum listens and owning a spectrum.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Not True

“which strictly speaking is government owned housing”

Again this objectively untrue. As already pointed out and linked to in other threads HUD acknowledges that over 10% of public housing today is privately owned and gowning under the Obama era RAD program.

Just because you say something is true doesn’t make it true. Yeah you can look up RAD. A lot of the left are upset about it because they believe that public housing shouldn’t be privatized. But that belief doesn’t trump reality.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

There are tons of businesses where you will be silenced and it will not stop your free speech. At all.

What Mike said above is absolutely correct. For example, I can’t speak freely on Twitter because its ToS says you need to create an account to do so, and I have issues remembering multiple passwords for AOL, social network, etc., but Twitter’s not allowing me to speak freely on their platform doesn’t stop me from speaking freely here, so I haven’t been silenced in any meaningful way. What about that is so hard for you to understand?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

A restaurant is noting like Social Media.

Both offer services to the public. Both operate on privately owned property. Both have rules for the behavior of patrons/users, and those who break those rules can be tossed out.

But sure, a restaurant is nothing like a social media service in any way whatsoever~.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Even the government is allowed to place content-neutral time-and-place restrictions on speech. For example, even at a public university, if a mob of woke students tries to disrupt a class because the law professor has used “n_____” in a hypothetical case, non-craven administrators could have security remove them. Also, commercial speech has fewer protections under the 1st Amendment. (That’s why we can have laws against robocalls and phone spam.)

In general, if it would be illegal under the 1st Amendment for the government to silence some speech, then it is a violation of free speech as a concept for a private entity to do the same thing, even if it is legal for them to do so. The 1st Amendment is an example of free speech applied to government. Free speech is not limited to the 1st Amendment.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

if it would be illegal under the 1st Amendment for the government to silence some speech, then it is a violation of free speech as a concept for a private entity to do the same thing

Who gives a fuck about a concept being violated unless it’s the fucking laws of physics? Your imagined right to say whatever you want in any place you want ends where another person’s actual legal rights begin. You can be kicked out of a bar for talking trash about a local sports team, you can be kicked out of someone’s home for talking shit about their mother, and you can be kicked off Twitter for breaking their rules⁠—and none of those things violates your ability to speak freely anywhere else that will have you. Show me the law that says otherwise or fuck all the way off.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen says:

Re: Re: Re:10 "Show Me A Law"

There are no longer laws against adultery either, but that doesn’t mean it’s right to cheat on your spouse.

You seem utterly unable to grasp the concept that it is a violation of people’s free speech to silence them, no matter what the motives for that silencing are, and no matter how legal that silencing is. If you want to silence people anyway, so be it, but you will need to own the fact that you are impeding their freedom of speech.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Do you really believe your absolutist version of free speech trumps my right to disassociate from you by kicking you out from my property? Like any other property owner?

Free speech with no limits on how it’s conducted is not free speech, it’s anarchy. Free speech foisted upon unwilling participants isn’t free speech, it’s forced association. And telling others that they must carry your speech is forced speech.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

A restaurant is noting like Social Media. That is why this logical fallacy is called extrapolation to absurdity. Its an absurd comparison.

Elsewhere in this thread you have cited tons of cases, all of which are even further away from social media than a restaurant is.

Methinks Chozen is one of those people who cherry picks arguments with no principles beyond “does this help me.”

i.e., you are a troll with no principles beyond “I will say anything to pretend I have won this argument.” Better known as: a loser.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen says:

Re: Re: Re:4

You are tragically wrong. The social media platforms are not restaurants or movie theaters. They are places specifically manufactured for people to get together and speak to each other. When The platforms choose to silence a point of view, they impede the free speech of the people who have gathered to hold conversations.

Unbelievably, you are endorsing Jim Crow. The rights of Black people have not been impeded just because they can’t use this whites-only bathroom. Look, there’s another bathroom over there they can use.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:5

They are places specifically manufactured for people to get together and speak to each other.

Yes, freedom of association is a thing where like minded people can talk to each other without having to deal with assholes trying to impose themselves on others.

When The platforms choose to silence a point of view, they impede the free speech of the people who have gathered to hold conversations.

The current moderation practices we have today are entirely due to people who behaved like assholes or didn’t know what discretion was. It’s like everything else where the assholes just can’t stop themselves from spreading shit around which leads to a worse experience for everyone else.

And when it comes to “points of view”, I haven’t yet seen any kind of conclusive evidence that certain points of views are moderated more than others – unless we are talking about the views assholes have, the ones that for example declares that a group people are subhuman or unnatural in one way or another, or just plain attack them with made up ills that have no basis in reality.

What we have seen though, is that some topics have been so poisoned by the assholes that anyone straying into them may get moderated – regardless of the person’s point of view or argument. And that impacts marginalized people far more in their effort in getting heard than any kind of jackass complaining on primetime Fox that they have been “silenced” for their conservative views.

If your point of view is entirely built on demonizing someone, it’s not really free speech or debate you want – it’s a free pass on attacking others without consequence. If it’s a debate you want, you don’t talk about “woke ideologies”, SJW’s or how transsexuals are just groomers and pedophiles who are mentally ill because that means you have already made up your mind and the sole purpose of your “debate” is to spew vitriol.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:7

You are a case in point, an unrepentant asshole spreading shit around making life worse for everyone else that have to interact with you.

And I’m not at all surprised that you just have to misrepresent what I said – because if you think the current moderation practices on all social media are entirely due to the orange buffoon’s brain-farts you must be new to the internet.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

And before that, almost every place trying to ignore you fucking treasonous curs exist.

It’s one thing to whine about being booted out of privately-owned public spaces because some people don’t like adhering to social norms, it’s another when you are screaming racial slurs and wanting to murder people who aren’t white, “Protestant”, “Anglo-saxon”.

Trust me, I’ve been there.

Get the fuck out of here, and 4chan.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Latino is Not a Race

Latino is not a race you dipshit. Yes my skin is darker than a someone of northern European descent but we southern Europeans have always been darker. It has nothing to do with Moors or interbreeding with Native Americans. There are writings from Greek and Roman times denoting how white Northern Europeans were relative to them. Caesar light hair and light skin was used to suggest that his father was really a Gaul slave and not Gaius Julius Caesar Sr.

Yeah I may have a little more Native American in me than your average 1/512 American WASP or 1/1024 Elizabeth Warren but not that much more. Spaniards from the region of Spain my family comes from are just as dark as I am.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

there is litany of laws and regulations dictating how they can do so

Not a one of them says patrons can’t be kicked out for saying or doing something the owners of a pub¹ or a nightclub don’t like/consider disruptive.

¹ — A pub, not a public house.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:8

Actually, ‘pub’ is short for ‘public house’ meaning a building open to members of the public so they can gather and drink (often) alcoholic beverages. The only difference between a pub and a social network is that your refreshments cost more in a pub. You can get barred from a pub, which is like being banned from a social network; you can still go to the pub, you just have to find a different pub to go to.

OGquaker says:

Re: Re: Re:8 "Not a one of them says.." But the courts have

There is Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) and Lushbaugh v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (2001) SCOTUS argued that it was within California’s power to guarantee this expansive free speech right since it did not unreasonably intrude on the rights of private property owners. Home Depot had “permitted” persons to conduct speech activities in “Designated Areas”:

Designated Areas, Fail.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9

And as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Pruneyard has been narrowed to the point where it only applies to “public congregation areas” in malls and shopping centers. Individual stores can still kick people out for being disruptive shits, just like social media services can do the same.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10 There You Go

“Is there any law that prevents a privately owned business or the owner of private property from tossing out a patron/guest for what they say and do, rather than who they are?”

“And as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Pruneyard has been narrowed to the point where it only applies to “public congregation areas” in malls and shopping center”

So you are admitting you are full of shit.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11

Nope. Pruneyard applies only to malls or shopping centers with areas analogous to public gathering places (e.g., food courts), and even then, it only applies in California, and even then, it still allows malls to kick people out for being disruptive shits in areas not covered by Pruneyard (and it still allows for individual stores in those malls to kick people out for being disruptive shits). Try again.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:5

You are tragically wrong. Yes, social media platforms are places specifically made for people to get together and speak to each other, just as restaurants are places specifically made for people to eat together and movie theaters are specifically made for people to watch new releases together. And just like on social media platforms, you can’t say or do anything you want in restaurants and movie theaters. If you could, there’d be no penalties for theft, rape, and murder.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

You might want to inform yourself about all the jurisprudence surrounding that case after it was decided. Per Wikipedia, and any emphasis is mine:

In the 2001 Golden Gateway decision, a 4–3 majority of the Court significantly narrowed Pruneyard by holding for a variety of reasons that California’s free speech right does not apply to private apartment complexes – yet they also refused to overrule Pruneyard. Thus, California’s right of free speech in private shopping centers still survives.

… Since Golden Gateway, decisions by the intermediate Courts of Appeal have generally limited the scope of the Pruneyard rule to the facts of the original case. For example, starting in 1997, the parking lots of many Costco warehouse club stores in California became sites of conflict involving a large number of political activist groups who had gradually become aware of their rights under Pruneyard. In 1998, Costco’s management imposed several restrictions, including a complete ban on soliciting at stand-alone stores, a rule that no group or person could use Costco premises for free speech more than 5 days out of any 30, and the complete exclusion of solicitors on the 34 busiest days of the year.

In 2002, these restrictions were upheld as reasonable by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District, and the Supreme Court of California denied review. Costco’s stand-alone stores lacked the social congregation attributes of the multi-tenant shopping center at issue in Pruneyard. As for the restrictions on the stores in shopping centers, they were held to be reasonable because Costco had developed a strong factual record at trial which proved that hordes of unwanted solicitors had significantly interfered with its business operations – they had damaged its reputation, obstructed access to its stores, and traumatized Costco employees.

… On December 27, 2012, the Supreme Court of California reaffirmed Pruneyard but narrowed its applicability to the facts of the original case. The entire court concurred in Associate Justice Joyce Kennard’s holding that Pruneyard applies only to “common areas” of shopping centers that are designed and furnished to encourage shoppers to linger, congregate, relax, or converse at leisure, but does not apply to any other open portions of shopping centers merely intended to facilitate the efficient movement of shoppers in and out of tenants, including concrete aprons and sidewalks which shoppers simply walk across as they move between parking lots and big-box stores. In other words, the court effectively immunized most (but not all) strip malls and shopping centers from Pruneyard, except for those with areas analogous to public gathering areas such as plazas, atriums, or food courts. Miriam Vogel, a former Court of Appeal justice who argued for the shopping center tenant (Kroger subsidiary Ralphs), characterized the decision “a great victory for retailers as far as putting another nail in the Pruneyard coffin.”

Citing Pruneyard to people who know more about it than you will do you no good here, son.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

This is the exchange that you are too dimwitted to understand:

Mike: Free speech (by which he meant the first amendment) has never meant you can use private property

Reasonable people: SCOTUS has upheld that sometimes you can, here’s the case

You, the biggest idiot in the room: Scotus only says sometimes

No shit you dumbass.

That doesn’t change the fact that they have upheld that sometimes the first amendment does apply to private entities, and all the exceptions and caveats that you are quoting doesn’t change that fact.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

SCOTUS has upheld that sometimes you can, here’s the case

And further jurisprudence said “even that narrow exemption is limited to places in malls and shopping centers that are essentially public gathering places, so you can’t just walk into a store and yell whatever just because it’s in a mall”. And even then, Pruneyard is still the law only in California. And further still, the logic of Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck⁠—a more recent decision that was cited in even more recent jurisprudence⁠—says that just because a private entity opens its doors to the public or offers a place for the public to speak does not make that place public property that is subject to the limitations of the First Amendment.

Your argument is shit. Get another one.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 First Amendment

Prunyard has nothing do with

‘property being subject to the limitations of the First Amendment.’

Its case dealing with the interpretation of the California constitution and its free speech clause not the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

The court found that the State of California requiring a public mall to allow for the legal free speech of their patrons did not amount to a violation of the owners 4th Amendment rights or the owners 1st Amendment rights.

Its the most apt law because the argument BigTech makes against social media regulation is the same argument Pruneyard made against the state requirement and the SCOTUS rejected.

That’s why Mike Manchild Masnick has to pretend that Pruneyard has been practically overturned. It voids his entire fucking argument.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7

The court found that the State of California requiring a public mall to allow for the legal free speech of their patrons did not amount to a violation of the owners 4th Amendment rights or the owners 1st Amendment rights.

And further jurisprudence on the case limits the parts of a mall/shopping center to which that decision applies⁠—which you’d know if you paid attention to literally every time anyone has ever told you that.

Twitter is neither a mall nor a public gathering spot in a mall. It is an interactive web service. Pruneyard doesn’t apply to it regardless of how often you keep implying that it does. And the logic of Halleck would likely overrule Pruneyard anyway, given the 9th Circuit’s decision in PragerU’s lawsuit against YouTube (which cited Halleck in favor of YouTube).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

That a platform has the right to silence the free speech of its users does not mean that the users have not been deprived of their freedom to speak.

Donald Trump was banned from Twitter. He still manages to get press releases out. He still holds cult meetings to this day. He even has his own goddamn social media platform.

Tell me how Twitter banning Donald Trump has deprived him of his freedom to speak⁠—has silenced him in violation of the First Amendment⁠—when Donald Trump can get the attention of the press any time he wants.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:

Right. Just like my right to freedom of movement is impeded by anti-trespassing laws. /s
Sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, chump, but your rights end where those of others begin. Your right to frer speech doesn’t obviate others’ right to free assembly, and part of that right is the right to choose who to assemble with.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Hyman Rosen says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I seem to recall someone writing a little ditty named This Land Is Your Land that took issue with exactly that.

You don’t seem to understand that just because someone is legally allowed to do something, it doesn’t mean that they’re not doing that thing. The state is allowed to lock you up for stealing a load of bread. That doesn’t mean that you haven’t been locked up.

Twitter can silence whomever they want. When they do, they have impeded the free speech of the person they silenced, who had an expectation, reasonable or not, that they were using a platform open to speech from everyone.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:3

The state is allowed to lock you up for stealing a load of bread because that bread was someone else’s rivalrous property. Twitter can’t silence whoever they want, but they do have a right to ban those who violate their terms of service just as I have a right to kick someone out of my house if they break my rules. When Twitter bans someone, they haven’t impeded the free speech of the person they banned because that individual can still speak on Facebook, Tumblr, or even forums. Using a platform open to speech from everyone doesn’t give you the right to do and say whatever you want to in violation of the platform’s ToS, Hymen Rosan.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

I seem to recall someone writing a little ditty named This Land Is Your Land that took issue with exactly that.

Er, no. Woody Guthrie’s issue was with how native Americans were being treated. And BTW, Guthrie did not say that the song was free for anyone to use. The song he released into the Public Domain was California!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Better Analogy

Again absurd analogies. Lets make a more reasoned analogy rather than you absurd bullshit.

You live in Alliance Nebraska. When you want to travel you typically catch a puddle jumper from Alliance to Denver. Due to some personal dispute with the owner you are banned from the only carrier out of Alliance.

Now whenever you want to travel you have to first drive to Denver.

So yes while you can still fly your freedom to travel has been greatly inhibited.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Naughty Autie says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Random links are not a rebuttal.

No, but well-researched ones are.

Use your own mind.

I don’t have to. I’m only using my arse, and my arguments are still more reasoned and substantial than yours, you fucking ignoramus.
As for the inner dialogue thing, that’s actually ableist against autistic children, not that an unempathic PoS like you cares.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Why is it “unfortunate” to think of content moderation first when it comes to free speech?

Imagine for a moment that you’re a trans person who uses Twitter. (It will require you think of trans people as people for a minute and I’m sure that’s a bit of a stretch for you, but stick with me.) Without content moderation, the moment someone finds out you’re trans, you’ll be opened up to the worst kinds of harassment from the worst kinds of people. They’ll say the worst shit to you and all you can do about it is block the assholes and filter the predictable phrases. When they find ways around your blocks and your filters, they’ll keep coming and they absolutely will not stop until you’re gone (or dead).

Now imagine that Twitter is also a lifeline for you. It gives you access to contacts that you wouldn’t have been able to make otherwise, both personal and professional. Losing Twitter would mean losing those contacts⁠—that support system⁠—and affect your life in ways you don’t want to imagine. Content moderation would go a long way in keeping some of those assholes from even reaching your virtual doorstep so you wouldn’t have to deal with them to begin with.

Why you would ever want to make Twitter host transphobic speech (even the “polite” kind) to make assholes happy is beyond my realm of understanding. All that hate, and what will it get you in the end?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

So you mean they’ll have to cope like everyone else?

That’s my point: They shouldn’t have to “cope” with disruptive assholes trying to chase them off social media. Moderation would go a long way in mitigating the amount of work an end user must do so they can mitigate what reaches their mentions.

Maybe one day anti-speechers will figure out an actual logical argument that doesn’t involve emotional fallacies and authoritarian talking points.

Maybe one day assholes like you will realize that the speech and the hate you revel in spreading anywhere you can isn’t welcome everywhere and you’ll stop being such massive gaping anuses. But it is not this day.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Go Ahead

Go Ahead to quote Noam Chomsky

“”When we move into the arena of violence, the most brutal guys win – and that’s not us.”

Lets not talk about violence because a Red v. Blue civil war has been wargamed by the military and think tanks for decades. There is no scenario where the blues win. Don’t write checks your body cant cash.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Latinos

If you think we Latinos will fight your war for you you are dumber than I thought.

What is it with you woke WASP morons that you think we are on your side. Even the half of us who vote for you only do so for free stuff. We ain’t going to fight and die for you. We fucking hate you. We aren’t stupid. You exploit us. A woke Bay Area WASP like Mike can get their house cleaning, lawn care, babysitting for less than it costs someone in Nebraska to just get their house cleaning. You love the cheap labor and you love exploiting us. Don’t think we haven’t noticed.

When his civil war you keep talking about comes it wont be some rednecks from outside of the city that hang you form a lamppost. It will be your own brown servants.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

If you think we Latinos will fight your war for you you are dumber than I thought.

Dude, you literally said you’d kill people both up close and far away if I asked you which one you’d prefer to do in your hypothetical Civil War II. That sounds like you’re not only willing to fight in that war, you’re giddy at the thought of killing your fellow countrymen (which might also include fellow Latinos).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Chozen (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 I Didn't Bring up Violence

I didn’t bring up violence one of your AC’s did

“Violence.

Hey, YOUR LOT made it AN OPTION.”

I just told you what will happen if you resort to violence. This seems to be a norm for you.

One of Mike’s Misfits makes a threat of violence. The threatened person responded fuck around and find out. Another of Mike’s Misfits clutches pears and screams how dare you make such threats.

You dipshits are plainly obvious in your games.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:12

You nutcases have been burning our cities. No we have no problem telling you we will kill you if you come after us.

Most people don’t admit to having fantasies of killing mass numbers of people without consequence or remorse⁠—because they don’t have those fantasies. But you do you, sociopath.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Jan 6 happened, and now a chunk of the 73 million have explicitly said they are more than happy to murder the rest of the nation.

Do YOU seriously want to start a civil war? Oh wait, Jan 6 happened.

The Reds, ie, the Republicans started it.