Ironically, the 1st Amendment protects Twitter's ability to block anything that it likes.
Fundamentally, the government can't dictate what anybody chooses to publish (or not) on a website that they own. They can seize it and prosecute the owners if the content is illegal, but they can't force editorial decisions.
This whole arrangement drove a lot of traffic to Twitter and helped to keep it relevant; they just didn't want to kill their golden goose.
The 1st amendment doesn't come into play unless Twitter is being coerced by the government against their will. There's no legal prohibition against Twitter moderating their platform in a way that also pleases certain people associated with the government.
You seem to have a profoundly distorted view of the law. The 1A places zero restrictions on what Twitter can do, only on what the government can do.
If the government intimidates Twitter into censoring content, the government has violated the first amendment and can be taken to court for that. Twitter still has the right to censor how they please, regardless of whether goverent intimidation played any role in Twitter's motivations.
Your are mixing up the first amendment with the broader idea of free speech.
The 1A (roughly speaking) limits the scope of the Government as not too limit free speech.
Twitter, as a private company, is not restricted by the first amendment. However, one can note that Twitter does not allow free speech.
This is quite important from a legal standpoint, because since Twitter practices censorship of ideas they don’t like, they are no longer considered a common carrier.
No, Twitter's actions aren't restricted at all by the First Amendment. They are free to block anyone they want or change for access if they want to.
The government, however, is bound by the First Amendment to choose a communication platform that is compatible with the requirements of the First Amendment. If Twitter restricts use in such a way that people cannot freely use it, then the government is obligated to stop using Twitter as a communications platform.
That was their decision, and it's absolutely different than the government demanding that content is removed. The First Amendment applies to the government demands and not Twitter operating as a private entity.
It's not that Twitter stopped people from posting. It's that Twitter did that at the behest of the government. That is a clear violation of the First Amendment.
What you and responders have missed is the 1st Amendment is totally and entirely inapplicable to Twitter. There is a misunderstanding here of the Amendment. It only applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers. It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional. No other entity or group is bound by the 1st Amendment. And this is by the Founders' design, because extending the 1st Amendment to all entities and groups would in fact limit freedom.
Just to clarify (belatedly), my point was that whether or not it's protected speech doesn't matter when we're discussing Twitter - because Twitter isn't beholden to the 1st Amendment. They are free to block speech even if it is "protected."
For everyone playing at home: When the Government (personified by Trump in this case) limits your ability to express your freedom of speech (represented by blocking you on twitter) they're violating the first Amendment.
When a private citizen or corporation does it, you're probably just violating their ToS.
But it’s not “their” site, because the censorship decisions were being made by the government and Twitter was acting on behalf of these congressmen, etc. Thus Twitter’s actions were subject to the 1st Amendment. Congress cannot launder their illegal activities through an intermediary. The intermediary becomes a government actor.
I never said Twitter was protected by the 1st Amendment, that specifically is about government. I said once government (which is limited by the 1st) intervenes to try to get a company to stop free speech, that's an affront to the 1st Amendment. It's coercion. Do you really think governments don't try to kill speech and ideas through coercion? Do you really see no problem with that?
I have no idea why people like yourself try to twist the argument. Also, there is a thing like "principles" which aren't encoded into law but are encoded into society and makes it work quite well, which includes free speech. So, I can believe a platform should have the maximum amount of free speech possible...and that is not the same as saying it has or needs 1st Amendment protections.
For the amount of backlash HN gives to private companies for harvesting private data and handing it over to government...there are SUPRISING amounts of people here defending the government in coercing on this. Baffling.
Main thing this article seems to illustrate is that the federal government was blatantly violating the 1st amendment to silence viewpoints counter to it's own. I really don't care what a private platform does, the actions of the government far outweigh anything Twitter did in this case.
Just responding to one part of this, if that's cool.
I think what the comment above is saying is that it's not about whether or not speech on Twitter is protected. It's that the government isn't supposed to act to restrict speech in any manner that doesn't cross the lines he listed.
If I'm remembering correctly, there was a big court case because Trump was hiding critical responses to his tweets on Twitter. The judge ruled that Trump violated the 1st amendment even though Twitter is a private company ("private property"?).
This is because the 1st amendment not only protects speech, it restricts government attempts to control speech (or at least that's the argument that would be made).
Political speech on Twitter is not constitutionally protected. Twitter is a private platform that can legally block any speech with or without government interference so long as that interference is not present in the capacity of a government agent.
The first amendment is limited to protections against government interference.
Fundamentally, the government can't dictate what anybody chooses to publish (or not) on a website that they own. They can seize it and prosecute the owners if the content is illegal, but they can't force editorial decisions.
This whole arrangement drove a lot of traffic to Twitter and helped to keep it relevant; they just didn't want to kill their golden goose.
reply