>People make this point every single time this comes up like they've contributed something interesting or new, it's exhausting.
Almost as exhausting as people saying it's exhausting.
>No one has said the constitution applied to Twitter. Everyone knows the first amendment applies to governments only.
Odd way for the GP to open up an argument then.
>One thing about the first amendment is that it doesn't have conditions. This type of thing that Twitter is doing will be full of them, ie selectively defining what's political or not.
If everyone knows that it doesn't apply, then everyone should just leave it out to begin with. Also, in implementation, it absolutely has conditions. 0/2.
>Yet free speech still has a huge cultural role in western countries that goes well beyond government charters, for very good reasons. That's the reason why it's embedded in law in the first place, not the other way around, we didn't start caring about free speech because the US constitution adopted it, nor should we dismiss it where government rule ends
Huh? It was added because the founders had first hand experience with government suppressing rebellious rabble rousers who threatened their power. It guaranteed freedom of religion, the press, and assembly. Of course that's what they were fighting for. In what way did it go "beyond government charters"?
I am the OP and I specifically referenced the first amendment as an analogy to highlight the dangers of grey areas, which are the things the constitution avoids by making them absolute. Which is where all the risk remains with this sort of policy, and the reason why it's relevant to Twitter.
Saying the first amendment doesn't apply to private companies is meaningless in that context.
Context matters. Pigeonholing a tired counter argument where it doesn't fit isn't contributing to this conversation. Although I suspect you didn't actually read the comment before replying, only the first sentence.
Tangentially invoking a hot-button issue like the first amendment is at best a tactical error in that it distracts from your actual point. In this case, your analogy is flat wrong because the first amendment actually does have lots of grey area (I mean, you can choose not to recognize the USSC's interpretation as valid, but it won't help). In response to your underlying argument about special cases being bad: tough. We don't have a choice. A finite policy can only ever be an approximation to justice.
Almost as exhausting as people saying it's exhausting.
>No one has said the constitution applied to Twitter. Everyone knows the first amendment applies to governments only.
Odd way for the GP to open up an argument then.
>One thing about the first amendment is that it doesn't have conditions. This type of thing that Twitter is doing will be full of them, ie selectively defining what's political or not.
If everyone knows that it doesn't apply, then everyone should just leave it out to begin with. Also, in implementation, it absolutely has conditions. 0/2.
>Yet free speech still has a huge cultural role in western countries that goes well beyond government charters, for very good reasons. That's the reason why it's embedded in law in the first place, not the other way around, we didn't start caring about free speech because the US constitution adopted it, nor should we dismiss it where government rule ends
Huh? It was added because the founders had first hand experience with government suppressing rebellious rabble rousers who threatened their power. It guaranteed freedom of religion, the press, and assembly. Of course that's what they were fighting for. In what way did it go "beyond government charters"?