Reply to Elon Musk buys $3 billion stake (9.2%) in Twitter and is now the platform's largest shareholder

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Elon Musk buys $3 billion stake (9.2%) in Twitter and is now the platform's largest shareholder"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Shouldn't all Americans be free speech absolutists?  [/quote]

You already know free speech has limits. Why feign stupidity?[/quote]

Tell us, oh Wise One - how do you define those limits?

Let me guess: “anything and everything I disagree with”, right? [/quote]

Actually, the supreme court has been quite clear about those limits over the years. The current policies in place by the vast majority of tech companies grossly exceed the limits defined by the supreme court. [/quote]

Because tech companies are not the government and have freedom themselves.[/quote]

There is a very compelling argument to be made that these tech companies are utilities, or at the very least, common carriers. And neither of those are allowed to practice the kind of subjective discrimination in their delivery of services or power that many tech companies currently do with regard to free speech that does not meet the USSC thresholds for obscenity, libel or incitement.

Through their censorship and ideological standards for speech, these lefty tech oligarchs are setting themselves up to have their platforms taken away from their control and being operated as a public utility. Which would be hysterically funny, BTW.

[/quote]

If I send an Op-Ed to the Washington Post or the New York Times, they’re not obligated to publish it in their pages.  And no one would argue that my free speech rights have been infringed.  What’s the difference?

Freedom of speech only means that the government can’t arrest you for saying something.  It doesn’t mean that private companies are required by law to allow you to use their platforms.  If it makes good business sense to exclude certain people because of their actions, then private businesses should have the right to do that.[/quote]

The difference is that the WaPo can be sued for publishing things that aren’t true. And this happens.

Twitter and Facebook have federal government protection against being sued because they claim that they aren’t the real publishers of the information, they’re just passing along what the public publishes and so can’t be held responsible for what is written.

But clearly Twitter and Facebook have been acting like publishers when it suits them, censoring things that they don’t like. A utility company can’t do that.[/quote]

Rather than a utility company, a better analogy is a porn studio. Twitter et al are entertainment. If people find you offensive/violate the rules of behavior or you hurt the bottom line, you get kicked out. The government gives you free speech but they don’t require a private company to publish you. It’s capitalism and private companies hold the power, not gov.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics