Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

[Carl in Michigan]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

Two words: FOX Noise


.

why do I care about those leftwing fuckers??

Fox is too far left for you?

Jesus. You've purchased a condo in the right wing echo chamber and live there year round, don't you?

If the deep end has a deeper end, the RWNJs are now going off the deeper end, having left behind the deep end four years ago.

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

Two words: FOX Noise


.

why do I care about those leftwing fuckers??

Fox is too far left for you?

Jesus. You've purchased a condo in the right wing echo chamber and live there year round, don't you?

of course they are,, what are you an idiot??

You are the idiot here, hands down.

.

and yet you fail to explain how,,,

that would make you the idiot for responding with nothing but noise,,

Your posts speak volumes, so no further explanations are necessary. Only you are blind to it.


.

Progressive is just butthurt that Trump surrendered and all the lies OANN and NewsMax told him about how the election was going to go turned out to be meaningless bullshit.

A nap, a cookie and a shower and he'll be right as rain.

After all that, will he be less boring?

.

There will be new conspiracies, I suppose.

You've got to give the conservatives credit on their creative writing skillz. JK Rowling has got shit on their election conspiracies. I mean, an international plot spanning a decade, Hugo "I've been dead since 2013" Chavez throwing the election, Phili mob bosses having gansters fill in ballots, North Korea boating ballots into Maine, Krackens, 'Big Ones'...hell, Rudy Gulliani even melted on camera once.

Throw in Optimus Prime and you've got a best seller.

The conspiracy theories must be created in a well funded conservative think tank. The trained experts there understand the RWNJs mental patterns and know exactly what form the conspiracy theory must take for a given situation.

They also discovered progressives must see solid evidence for all assertions, while a simple rumor quickly convinces conservatives of the conspiracy theory's veracity.

It's easy to understand the GOP's regular use of conspiracy rumors to distract their voter base's attention when reality begins to intrude.

.

Nah. Any dipshit with a wordpress blog can start a conspiracy theory if you've got people desperte to be lied to. There are entire conspiracies based on nothing but a second hand tweet.

Remember the 'Head of the CIA killed in fire fight with US military in Germany' conspiracy? That blithering horseshit made a brown stain as it circled the bowl for almost a month.

And it was all based on one SECOND HAND tweet.

FFS, the entire QAnon conspiracy is based on the predictions of a dude whose accuracy was WORSE THAN GUESSING. Do you know how bad you have to be at predicting to be outplayed by a Magic 8 ball?

But there are hundreds of thousands of those dipshits.

That would indicate fooling the RWNJs is so simple, they do it to themselves. And yet, they believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than experts in... every subject.

Most recently their superior expertise was overruling medical experts, virologists, experts in communicable diseases, scientific experts, any topic related to the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The RWNJs' knowledge of everything has help push the COVID-19 death toll to roughly 360,000.


.

.

Dunning-Kruger?

That says it all.

That long scroll for that? Might want to think about breaking this QUOTE chain

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

What is the difference to you?

 

[WEATHER53]

We are entitled to our religious and political beliefs. It’s a protected class. You can’t deny me a house over it. Political belief speech is same way, Twitter cant discriminate like that under guise of private company .

 

[Skylar]

...
That would indicate fooling the RWNJs is so simple, they do it to themselves. And yet, they believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than experts in... every subject.

Most recently their superior expertise was overruling medical experts, virologists, experts in communicable diseases, scientific experts, any topic related to the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The RWNJs' knowledge of everything has help push the COVID-19 death toll to roughly 360,000
.

There is not a single virologist, epidemiologist, doctor, etc., that would ever say that "flattening the curve" will ever end any epidemic or save any lives.
Flattening the curve has never once ended any epidemic, and never can.
The reality is that it is always herd immunity that ends all epidemics, including the times when vaccines can be used.
And flattening the curve actually prevents herd immunity, the host burn out from the quick spike, so ends up killing far more. Flattening the curve can easily make a minor epidemic last forever.

Flattening the curve was about preventing our hospitals from being overwhelmed and spreading out the cases.

But making the epidemic last longer is a horrible idea because it allows it to spread wider and deeper, making it much harder to end.
Since the month long hospitalization is much longer than the illness normal 2 weeks, then spreading out the cases eventually overwhelms the hospitals even more.

With epidemics, speed is of the essence.
Even if the cases do not increase, with more time the cases will spread much further apart, making herd immunity impossible.
Herd immunity relies on local burn out of hosts.
If you slow it down, then the people will move around more, and the virus will be able to get at much more distant victims.
It is inherently incompetent and foolish.
Should never have been done.
And never has been done successfully in the past or by anyone.
Quarantine is done instead, because that works FAST.
You do contact tracing to prevent people from even becoming infectious.

As the overwhelmed hospitals in California and El Paso demonstrate, spreading it out is a solid idea. As you keep your ICU capacity at a functional level. They're rationing care now.

AS I just pointed out, spreading it out greatly increases the total the hospital accumulates over time.

Says who?

Second, you didn't address the actual purpose of the flattening the curve: to mintain ICU capacity and keep from overwhelming our hospitals.

Right now many major cities are overwhelmed.....with only about 9 million active cases. That's about 2.75% of the population....and we're overwhelmed.

Herd immunity kicks at between 75% and 85%. Meaning we'd have to have 246,000,000 cases to about 278,000,000 cases.

And you wanted them ALL in 1 month? That's a terrible idea.

And if we had NOT "flattened the curve" and let it spike in March, then herd immunity would have ended it in March, so then hospitals would not have accumulated so many patients over time.

Again, says who?

Who says that we would have had herd immunity in March?

 

[Skylar]

We are entitled to our religious and political beliefs. It’s a protected class. You can’t deny me a house over it. Political belief speech is same way, Twitter cant discriminate like that under guise of private company .

Where is political belief protected as a class in our laws?

And of course, who decides what the basis of someone getting banned from Twitter is? Twitters TOS certainly picks a team.

 

[WEATHER53]

We are entitled to our religious and political beliefs. It’s a protected class. You can’t deny me a house over it. Political belief speech is same way, Twitter cant discriminate like that under guise of private company .

Where is political belief protected as a class in our laws?

And of course, who decides what the basis of someone getting banned from Twitter is? Twitters TOS certainly picks a team.

I just told you. In housing. It’s a federal fair housing law. Tell someone you won’t rent them your house because they are Republican. Try it.

 

[Skylar]

We are entitled to our religious and political beliefs. It’s a protected class. You can’t deny me a house over it. Political belief speech is same way, Twitter cant discriminate like that under guise of private company .

Where is political belief protected as a class in our laws?

And of course, who decides what the basis of someone getting banned from Twitter is? Twitters TOS certainly picks a team.

I just told you. In housing. It’s a federal fair housing law. Tell someone you won’t rent them your house because they are Republican. Try it.

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing because of

• Race
• Color
• National Origin
• Religion
• Sex
• Familial Status
• Disability

Housing Discrimination Under the Fair Housing Act | HUD.gov / U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

www.hud.gov

That's it.

So I ask again, where is political belief protected class in our laws. Its not the Housing Act.

 

[BertramN]

...
That would indicate fooling the RWNJs is so simple, they do it to themselves. And yet, they believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than experts in... every subject.

Most recently their superior expertise was overruling medical experts, virologists, experts in communicable diseases, scientific experts, any topic related to the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The RWNJs' knowledge of everything has help push the COVID-19 death toll to roughly 360,000
.

There is not a single virologist, epidemiologist, doctor, etc., that would ever say that "flattening the curve" will ever end any epidemic or save any lives.
Flattening the curve has never once ended any epidemic, and never can.
The reality is that it is always herd immunity that ends all epidemics, including the times when vaccines can be used.
And flattening the curve actually prevents herd immunity, the host burn out from the quick spike, so ends up killing far more. Flattening the curve can easily make a minor epidemic last forever.

Flattening the curve was about preventing our hospitals from being overwhelmed and spreading out the cases.

But making the epidemic last longer is a horrible idea because it allows it to spread wider and deeper, making it much harder to end.
Since the month long hospitalization is much longer than the illness normal 2 weeks, then spreading out the cases eventually overwhelms the hospitals even more.

With epidemics, speed is of the essence.
Even if the cases do not increase, with more time the cases will spread much further apart, making herd immunity impossible.
Herd immunity relies on local burn out of hosts.
If you slow it down, then the people will move around more, and the virus will be able to get at much more distant victims.
It is inherently incompetent and foolish.
Should never have been done.
And never has been done successfully in the past or by anyone.
Quarantine is done instead, because that works FAST.
You do contact tracing to prevent people from even becoming infectious.

As the overwhelmed hospitals in California and El Paso demonstrate, spreading it out is a solid idea. As you keep your ICU capacity at a functional level. They're rationing care now.

AS I just pointed out, spreading it out greatly increases the total the hospital accumulates over time.
And if we had NOT "flattened the curve" and let it spike in March, then herd immunity would have ended it in March, so then hospitals would not have accumulated so many patients over time.

And you NEVER have to or should ration care.
When approaching capacity, you just request FEMA emergency facilities, such as hospital ships that are still empty now.

So the solution to the COVID-19 pandemic, the disease should have been permitted to spread freely and kill as many as it takes to achieve herd immunity?

Because the impeached president trump was determined to see that happen. Many of his devoted cultists died believing the disease was a hoax.

He decided any attempt to slow the spread by everyone to provide time to develop a vaccine was unnecessary. Unfortunately this sh!t kills people and in large numbers. What do you tell the families of the dead who were sacrificed needlessly to possibly speed up herd immunity.

Other countries locked down, and with the cooperation of all citizens have greatly limited the number of cases and deaths.

Sweden went for the "kill as many as it takes" method. How's that workin' out for them?

New Zealand: "By mid-March, it was clear that community transmission was occurring in New Zealand and that the country didn’t have sufficient testing and contact-tracing capacity to contain the virus. Informed by strong, science-based advocacy, national leaders decisively switched from a mitigation strategy to an elimination strategy."

"In early May, the last known Covid-19 case was identified in the community and the person was placed in isolation, which marked the end of identified community spread. On June 8, the government announced a move to Alert Level 1, thereby effectively declaring the pandemic over in New Zealand, 103 days after the first identified case."

"There are several lessons from New Zealand’s pandemic response. Rapid, science-based risk assessment linked to early, decisive government action was critical. Implementing interventions at various levels (border-control measures, community-transmission control measures, and case-based control measures) was effective. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern provided empathic leadership and effectively communicated key messages to the public — framing combating the pandemic as the work of a unified “team of 5 million” — which resulted in high public confidence and adherence to a suite of relatively burdensome pandemic-control measures."

.

 

[tyroneweaver]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

If twitter is using anything that belongs to the government that's a first amendment violation
They also use communication links that I helped pay for

 

[BertramN]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

Two words: FOX Noise


.

why do I care about those leftwing fuckers??

Fox is too far left for you?

Jesus. You've purchased a condo in the right wing echo chamber and live there year round, don't you?

If the deep end has a deeper end, the RWNJs are now going off the deeper end, having left behind the deep end four years ago.

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

Two words: FOX Noise


.

why do I care about those leftwing fuckers??

Fox is too far left for you?

Jesus. You've purchased a condo in the right wing echo chamber and live there year round, don't you?

of course they are,, what are you an idiot??

You are the idiot here, hands down.

.

and yet you fail to explain how,,,

that would make you the idiot for responding with nothing but noise,,

Your posts speak volumes, so no further explanations are necessary. Only you are blind to it.


.

Progressive is just butthurt that Trump surrendered and all the lies OANN and NewsMax told him about how the election was going to go turned out to be meaningless bullshit.

A nap, a cookie and a shower and he'll be right as rain.

After all that, will he be less boring?

.

There will be new conspiracies, I suppose.

You've got to give the conservatives credit on their creative writing skillz. JK Rowling has got shit on their election conspiracies. I mean, an international plot spanning a decade, Hugo "I've been dead since 2013" Chavez throwing the election, Phili mob bosses having gansters fill in ballots, North Korea boating ballots into Maine, Krackens, 'Big Ones'...hell, Rudy Gulliani even melted on camera once.

Throw in Optimus Prime and you've got a best seller.

The conspiracy theories must be created in a well funded conservative think tank. The trained experts there understand the RWNJs mental patterns and know exactly what form the conspiracy theory must take for a given situation.

They also discovered progressives must see solid evidence for all assertions, while a simple rumor quickly convinces conservatives of the conspiracy theory's veracity.

It's easy to understand the GOP's regular use of conspiracy rumors to distract their voter base's attention when reality begins to intrude.

.

Nah. Any dipshit with a wordpress blog can start a conspiracy theory if you've got people desperte to be lied to. There are entire conspiracies based on nothing but a second hand tweet.

Remember the 'Head of the CIA killed in fire fight with US military in Germany' conspiracy? That blithering horseshit made a brown stain as it circled the bowl for almost a month.

And it was all based on one SECOND HAND tweet.

FFS, the entire QAnon conspiracy is based on the predictions of a dude whose accuracy was WORSE THAN GUESSING. Do you know how bad you have to be at predicting to be outplayed by a Magic 8 ball?

But there are hundreds of thousands of those dipshits.

That would indicate fooling the RWNJs is so simple, they do it to themselves. And yet, they believe themselves to be more knowledgeable than experts in... every subject.

Most recently their superior expertise was overruling medical experts, virologists, experts in communicable diseases, scientific experts, any topic related to the COVID-19 coronavirus.

The RWNJs' knowledge of everything has help push the COVID-19 death toll to roughly 360,000.


.

.

Dunning-Kruger?

That says it all.

That long scroll for that? Might want to think about breaking this QUOTE chain

It all boiled down to the RWNJs reaffirming the Dunning-Kruger effect. Which, for those of us not blessed with the knowledge of all things from birth, as are the RWNJs, is very enlightening.


.

 

[HaShev]

People keep missing the most obvious illegal act by Twitter and Facebook, that of obstructing the law through acts against lawmakers who dare hold social media as accountable as anyone else in defamation law suits, and for campaign finance fraud as their promoting their candidate and attacking the opposition is above and beyond in mobetary value that of the maximum donations allowed. One could also call it a bribe by the companies to be left alone and a quid pro quo for the liberal politicians as beneficiaries of the lopsided social media preferences in return for allowing them to operate as monopolies and break privacy laws etc. .

 

[Skylar]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

If twitter is using anything that belongs to the government that's a first amendment violation
They also use communication links that I helped pay for

Says who?

 

[Skylar]

People keep missing the most obvious illegal act by Twitter and Facebook, that of obstructing the law through acts against lawmakers who dare hold social media as accountable as anyone else in defamation law suits, and for campaign finance fraud as their promoting their candidate and attacking the opposition is above and beyond in mobetary value that of the maximum donations allowed. One could also call it a bribe by the companies to be left alone and a quid pro quo for the liberal politicians as beneficiaries of the lopsided social media preferences in return for allowing them to operate as monopolies and break privacy laws etc. .

What law is being obstructed in your 'most obvious illegal act'? Specifically.

 

[HaShev]

People keep missing the most obvious illegal act by Twitter and Facebook, that of obstructing the law through acts against lawmakers who dare hold social media as accountable as anyone else in defamation law suits, and for campaign finance fraud as their promoting their candidate and attacking the opposition is above and beyond in mobetary value that of the maximum donations allowed. One could also call it a bribe by the companies to be left alone and a quid pro quo for the liberal politicians as beneficiaries of the lopsided social media preferences in return for allowing them to operate as monopolies and break privacy laws etc. .

What law is being obstructed in your 'most obvious illegal act'? Specifically.

They keep preventing and bribing politicians on the protection from law suits.

 

[Skylar]

People keep missing the most obvious illegal act by Twitter and Facebook, that of obstructing the law through acts against lawmakers who dare hold social media as accountable as anyone else in defamation law suits, and for campaign finance fraud as their promoting their candidate and attacking the opposition is above and beyond in mobetary value that of the maximum donations allowed. One could also call it a bribe by the companies to be left alone and a quid pro quo for the liberal politicians as beneficiaries of the lopsided social media preferences in return for allowing them to operate as monopolies and break privacy laws etc. .

What law is being obstructed in your 'most obvious illegal act'? Specifically.

They keep preventing and bribing politicians on the protection from law suits.

Which lawsuits? Which politicians? What bribes?

The law protecting 'interactive computer services' from defamation for what was posted on those services was passed in 1996. Who are they bribing....Bob Dole?

 

[HaShev]

People keep missing the most obvious illegal act by Twitter and Facebook, that of obstructing the law through acts against lawmakers who dare hold social media as accountable as anyone else in defamation law suits, and for campaign finance fraud as their promoting their candidate and attacking the opposition is above and beyond in mobetary value that of the maximum donations allowed. One could also call it a bribe by the companies to be left alone and a quid pro quo for the liberal politicians as beneficiaries of the lopsided social media preferences in return for allowing them to operate as monopolies and break privacy laws etc. .

What law is being obstructed in your 'most obvious illegal act'? Specifically.

They keep preventing and bribing politicians on the protection from law suits.

Which lawsuits? Which politicians? What bribes?

The law protecting 'interactive computer services' from defamation for what was posted on those services was passed in 1996. Who are they bribing....Bob Dole?

You can go to those follow the donation money sites to see which tech people donate to which candidates but I'm talking about the fact their talking up candidates while demonizing opponents is free advertizing that has monetary value that even the IRS requires people to report, so technically those are campaign finances above the alloted maximum amount=campaign finance fraud and bribes. Example politicians requesting censorship of opponents in return for protection=bribe and quid pro quo.

 

[Norman]

Bake the cake.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

No, they just don't like people using their platform to plan insurgency.

it takes a special kind of stupid to think or suggest that was an insurgence,,,

Sorry kid, facts are facts. Like it or don't, they don't care.

so you think a few hundred unarmed hot heads were intent on over throwing the government???

that takes a special kind of stupid

So you don't think their intent was to stop or impede the certification process of Biden as the President elect?

 

[Norman]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

its more about free speech than the 1st amendment,, most people dont know the difference,,,

the issue with twiiter is they dont apply their rules equally and base it on political leanings favoring one side over the other,,

No, they just don't like people using their platform to plan insurgency.

it takes a special kind of stupid to think or suggest that was an insurgence,,,

Sorry kid, facts are facts. Like it or don't, they don't care.

so you think a few hundred unarmed hot heads were intent on over throwing the government???

that takes a special kind of stupid

So you don't think their intent was to stop or impede the certification process of Biden as the President elect?

Who cares if stopping the certification of the illegitimate president select was their goal.

They are heroes.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A basic lesson about free speech from Laurence Tribe:

To begin with, the First Amendment applies to the government — not to private actors like Twitter. So, when the company adds warnings to tweets or even — going a step further for users other than Trump — removes tweets, it can’t possibly violate the First Amendment, because it simply isn’t a governmental entity. You can love or hate how Twitter is regulating its own private platform — but you can’t call it a First Amendment violation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/28/trump-is-doubly-wrong-about-twitter/#click=[URL]https://t.co/6CjwdplWok

[/URL]

A professor should know that free speech applies to the government and not private enterprises

Private enterprise is prohibited by law from making decisions about speech that is of a countering opinion

Which law? And a 'countering opinion'.....according to who?

They are legally prohibited from censoring or preventing a countering opinion on an opinion platform

By what law? and 'censoring or preventing countering opinion'.....according to who?

Who is the arbiter of when that occurs?

You are trying word spaghetti so I will break it down
Trump has a countering political opinion to what Twitter has so he’s gone
They offer a site for opining but dictate and remove what they don’t feel good about, don’t agree with and don’t want seen.
That is prohibited by law by what is commonly known as freedom of speech and especially when you are soliciting speech as your sole business .

I don't agree that is why Twitter banned him. He has gotten away with a lot more due to his being POTUS than the average Twitter user could by violating their terms of service time and time again.

This wasn't sudden or without warning since they've removed previous content posted by him for being patently "false" however "inciting violence" apparently was the final straw for them.

The Fight Words doctrine of the 1st Amendment prohibits certain speech including speech that is so provocative that it incites an immediate breach of the peace. Not that the 1st Amendment applies because Twitter is not the government but is instead a private company who can institute whatever terms those who want to use their platform must comply with.

It's not his opinions that got him banned, it's his words that lead to actions which resulted in violence and death that got him banned. And true to his personality, he immediately went to a different account to continue his tirade.