User Controls
Anyone who thinks Twitter can infringe on your freedom of speech is retarded.
-
2021-02-18 at 9:43 PM UTCedited for privacy
-
2021-02-18 at 9:46 PM UTCoh good this faggotry again
quasi-monopoly, town Square, atleastitsnotthegoberment.jpg etcThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-02-18 at 9:48 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 9:50 PM UTC
Originally posted by Antifa Member This is retarded.
Freedom of speech is just the right to say what you want in public without interference from the government. That is the definition of free speech. Not Bob infringing your rights, not Sally, just the government.
Private property =/= public space.
Websites = private property.
It's really that simple. You don't have the right to go into someone's private property and say whatever the fuck you want. Certainly not when it is criminal or against their terms of service. The argument you are talking about with the communications industry is not a free speech issue. It is a labeling issue. The USA addressed this in title V of the telecommunications act of 1996. Websites are not publishers of their content. In 2019 the Supreme court voted that the first amendment doesn't apply to private platforms.
There's really no argument to be had. Nobody in their right mind thinks twitter and facebook should just let you post whatever you want without curation. Maybe some retarded anarchists but most sane people understand that this would ruin the quality and usability of these platforms. Would probably be overrun by bots and influencers (not the instagram type).
So I'm curious where this argument ends for you? Should you be able to post whatever the fuck you want online? Are websites merely nothing more than a vessel? Should they not be able to delete posts, and suspend and ban users? Should that be illegal for them to do?
And if so, should it be illegal for a brick and mortar business to be able to kick you out?
See, the current system is really the only way any of this work.
tldr: Twitter is not infringing on your freedom of speech you fucking morons.
you would know a thing or two about being retarded, you dipshit -
2021-02-18 at 10:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Your definition is flawed. Freedom of speech is the philosophical principle. It doesn't matter if the internet is public or not. It is not a legal issue, it is a philosophical one. Private companies are legally allowed to control what kinds of speech are allowed on their property, and to what extent they decide to do so is a freedom of speech issue. Just not a legal issue.
My definition is the dictionary and legal definition lol.
Your argument is null. -
2021-02-18 at 10:09 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 10:12 PM UTCedited for privacy
-
2021-02-18 at 10:12 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 10:15 PM UTCedited for privacy
-
2021-02-18 at 10:17 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 10:22 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-02-18 at 10:42 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 10:48 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 11:38 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 11:38 PM UTCBut not me cause I have heat
-
2021-02-18 at 11:38 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 11:39 PM UTC
-
2021-02-18 at 11:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai
Just take the L.
Maybe you'll take the L and the D and whatever fucking else you want but I don't do that shit.
Again, twitter is not the public and there's no argument to be made otherwise unless you have no respect for private property.
If you disagree, well, you're censoring me. -
2021-02-19 at 12:10 AM UTC
-
2021-02-19 at 12:13 AM UTCIt is naturally abhorrent to suppress the beliefs and opinions of others, in order to strengthen your own.
