Posted on 01/11/2021 12:08:56 PM PST by Onthebrink
https://investor.twitterinc.com/contact/faq/default.aspx
Twitters mission statement
The mission we serve as Twitter, Inc. is to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers. Our business and revenue will always follow that mission in ways that improve – and do not detract from – a free and global conversation.
FWIW
For that reason I want to forbid censorship of public speech by any large scale communications entity.
I believe the 1st Amendment applies to all private entities, including technology companies. Freedom of speech means the government allows you to say, or not say, pretty much anything you want.
It sounds like you want to limit the scope of the 1st A, which I understand, but I don't agree with the notion.
Private companies can’t violate the 1st Amendment because it only applies to government (Congress shall make no law...), and you can’t just make a law forcing them to publish everything because it’s established precedent that government compelling speech is a violation of the 1st.
I disagree, but you already know that. We are entering an age of Fascism, and there is no daylight between private companies and government now.
What do we disagree about? That the First Amendment applies only to government or that government-compelled speech is a violation of it?
I didn’t think either was controversial.
The first amendment applies to any entity which is capable of censoring American speech.
We have the unambiguous words of the Constitution and over 230 years of real life where it's never been successfully applied to private actors yet you choose to go with your personal feelings as to what the intent was.
You don't just say it should apply, you say it does, in direct opposition to reality.
Can you imagine why debate with you could be frustrating?
In direct opposition to people telling me this is the reality.
I don't know how much you've studied the history of the courts and of law in this nation, but if you've looked at it some, you may be aware of a Supreme Court ruling that says the constitution cannot be read in such a manner as to render a clause as having no effect.
What you are claiming gives us the very censorship our founders made it clear would not be tolerated. You are reading the document in such a way as to render the first amendment as having no real effect, and this is simply wrong.
It isn't me, it's 99.99 percent of everyone who's examined the issue, including in every judicial test it's had over the last 230 years.
It's OK to say you don't think it should be that way but to deny it is makes you look like a crank (not that there's anything wrong with that).
The argument "I am right because everyone agrees with me" is a fallacy. It is "Argumentum ad Popululum."
I reject as proof any claim that you are correct because other people agree with you. Proof must stand on it's own merits and not be based on popular opinion.
It's OK to say you don't think it should be that way but to deny it is makes you look like a crank (not that there's anything wrong with that).
All my life I have met few people whom I considered to be absolutely normal. All the people I know have odd quirks that seem irrational to me.
That's why I mentioned the unanimous rulings of the courts.
Saying something is (il)legal because the entire judicial system agrees is the opposite of fallcious.
I not only do not need a court to "interpret" intent for me, I generally use the courts as a gauge to measure how wrong an idea is. Generally if the courts say it is correct, it is wrong.
The fallacy you advocate here is "Argumentum ad Vericundiam."
"Experts" have said!
Saying something is (il)legal because the entire judicial system agrees is the opposite of fallcious.
Dred Scott. Homosexual "marriage". Abortion. Banning prayer in Schools. Anchor babies. Obamacare "tax." Kelo vs New London.
The courts have an excellent track record of being absolutely wrong.
Perhaps, but again, we're not talking about what's right, we're talking about what's the law.
And I suspect I'm not wrong in assuming it's your personal morality that you think should rule us all.
Although I would certainly like to have the credit for inventing morality, I have to be honest and point out that I didn't create it. I simply acknowledge it.
And before you think i'm just being snide, I would ask you to look up the term "Natural law."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.