Harvard law professor: Twitter cannot violate the First Amendment

[basquebromance]

If Biden had a sense of humor he would tweet: "LAW & ORDER!"

 

[basquebromance]

"Trump Sneaks Back On Twitter By Disguising Self As PR Rep For Chinese Communist Party" - The Onion

 

[rightwinger]

Guess what Perfesser?

Twitter can set the rules for using its service

 

[rightwinger]

My question is

Why is the President of the United States limited to using a social media site populated by teenagers to communicate with the nation?

Now that he can’t use Twitter he is silenced

 

[Crepitus]

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?

When dealing with the guy you quoted only the first four words of your post are necessary. "So you don't think..."

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,

Lol for fuck sake. You can have that opinion, but to suggest the GOVERNMENT should prohibit companies from operating in this way makes you sound like a complete dumbass.

where did I say the government should do anything???

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

it isnt about what I think,,, and like I said if they thought that they are a special kind of stupid,,,

is that what you thought their intent was???

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service

Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.

Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan

Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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]

That may well be true, but it isn't good business to treat the tens of millions of Trump voters as sub human.

That may well be true, but it isn't good business to treat the tens of millions of Trump voters as sub human.

“Good business” for these platforms is protecting their ad revenue. Trump supporters should learn to behave better than deranged lunatics.

 

[Polishprince]

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]

That may well be true, but it isn't good business to treat the tens of millions of Trump voters as sub human.

That may well be true, but it isn't good business to treat the tens of millions of Trump voters as sub human.

“Good business” for these platforms is protecting their ad revenue. Trump supporters should learn to behave better than deranged lunatics.

You sound like you would have fit right in during the Breshnev Administration in the old USSR. Old Leonid determined anyone who disagreed with Marxism had to be "deranged lunatics" too, and had them committed to insane asylums.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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]

That may well be true, but it isn't good business to treat the tens of millions of Trump voters as sub human.

That may well be true, but it isn't good business to treat the tens of millions of Trump voters as sub human.

“Good business” for these platforms is protecting their ad revenue. Trump supporters should learn to behave better than deranged lunatics.

You sound like you would have fit right in during the Breshnev Administration in the old USSR. Old Leonid determined anyone who disagreed with Marxism had to be "deranged lunatics" too, and had them committed to insane asylums.

You sound like you would have fit right in during the Breshnev Administration in the old USSR. Old Leonid determined anyone who disagreed with Marxism had to be "deranged lunatics" too, and had them committed to insane asylums.

Me and mine are not being banned and fleeing to the Parler fever swamps. It’s past time for the fringe to return to the fringes.

 

[Dana7360]

These tech companies need to lose their 230 protection immediately.

And if that happened, this board disappears.

Exactly.

People think that they don't have free speech now on social media, just wait if they get their way and 230 is repealed.

If 230 is repealed I will personally start legal proceedings on this website for violence, threats, intimidation among a very long list of infractions.

If 230 is repealed websites will be sued all over the place for all the abusive, violent and intimidating behavior all over the internet. They will be censoring content very strictly so they don't get sued.

These trump people are so far past stupid there are no words to describe it.

 

[Dana7360]

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]

Yes, they have the legal right. It just shows what fascists they are.

USMB can ban me anytime it wants.
You wouldn't be crying "free speech!"

If USMB were the only message board available, they wouldnt be able to for expressing an opinion

Message boards would be liable for anything posted here. They'd have to shut down immediately, or be sued into insolvency.

Arguing to shut down 230 is arguing to shut down this board.

I will be one of them.

The abuse, harassment, threats, stalking and so much more on this site will get this site sued.

By me.

This board will be shutdown so fast it will make the trump people's heads spin.

Or all the people who post such abuse, threats and harassment will be banned which is most of the trump followers on this board.

 

[Dana7360]

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
The offer a site for opining but dictate and remove what they don’t feel good about.
That is prohibited by law by what is commonly known as freedom of speech and especially when you are soliciting speech as your business .

No, this is not how ‘freedom of speech’ (also known as the first amendment to the constitution) works.
It only applies to the government. It only applies to the government. It only applies to the government.
Your employer can silence your speech, your spouse can silence your speech, any private company in any contract you enter into can silence your speech. And you are free not to do business with them or marry them.

trump is a champion of taking people's free speech from them.

He forces everyone he works with to sign a non disclosure agreement. If they talk about their experiences with working with trump they get sued.

I find it very funny that these people scream about free speech when they spent so much time defending and excusing trump for taking people's free speech from them by forcing people to sign an NDA.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service

Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.

Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan

Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.

www.usatoday.com

Again.......Are you against Capitalism ?
You WANT the government to step in and dictate what businesses can do more than they already do? I DON'T.

If people do not like Facebook or Twitter......LEAVE !!!!!

I've been saying over and over for 5 years now....THE RIGHT NEEDS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.

But NO. The Right clings to the leftwing sites like their life depends on it, crying and moaning the whole time. Who's the FOOL ?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

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
The offer a site for opining but dictate and remove what they don’t feel good about.
That is prohibited by law by what is commonly known as freedom of speech and especially when you are soliciting speech as your business .

No, this is not how ‘freedom of speech’ (also known as the first amendment to the constitution) works.
It only applies to the government. It only applies to the government. It only applies to the government.
Your employer can silence your speech, your spouse can silence your speech, any private company in any contract you enter into can silence your speech. And you are free not to do business with them or marry them.

trump is a champion of taking people's free speech from them.

He forces everyone he works with to sign a non disclosure agreement. If they talk about their experiences with working with trump they get sued.

I find it very funny that these people scream about free speech when they spent so much time defending and excusing trump for taking people's free speech from them by forcing people to sign an NDA.

Total Horseshit

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service

Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.

Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan

Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.

www.usatoday.com

Again.......Are you against Capitalism ?
You WANT the government to step in and dictate what businesses can do more than they already do? I DON'T.

If people do not like Facebook or Twitter......LEAVE !!!!!

I've been saying over and over for 5 years now....THE RIGHT NEEDS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.

But NO. The Right clings to the leftwing sites like their life depends on it, crying and moaning the whole time. Who's the FOOL ?

These decisions are being made as political persecution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism and everything to do with discrimination

 

[Rigby5]

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]

Totally wrong.
ORIGINALLY, the first amendment was not just restricted to government, but only the federal government, and the states and cities were free to infringe as they wanted to.
But NOT after the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment "incorporated" individual rights as implied by the Bill of Rights, to be protected from ALL infringement, by anyone.

And Twitter most definitely is NOT a "private actor", but a public medium that is supported by the government created Internet. If Twitter wants to be private and make its own rules, then it should go make its own global network and stop using the public internet, because the public internet comes with rules against infringement of individual rights.

Twitter most certainly be capable of being prosecuted for violating individual rights.
Just not sure that applies in this particular case.
That is for the courts to decide.

Nope. The incorporation doctrine selectively extends the Bill of Rights to the States. Not to 'anyone'.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Neither the incorporation doctrine nor the 14th amendment have a thing to do with twitter or other private businesses. They are about extending the limitations on the federal government to the states.

That is wrong.
Look as cases like where companies were denying abortion rights to employees, or fired people who campaigned for certain candidates off work hours.
The 14 amendment no only prohibits state laws from being used to infringe upon individual rights, but also to uphold individual rights when states have failed to pass legislation that would defend individual rights.

If you go back to the original context of the the Reconstruction era, what you are suggesting is that there was no legal recourse to stop the KKK from extorting and murdering Blacks, because the KKK was not an official act by government. And clearly that is wrong. The feds sent in troops to arrest KKK type private groups.

The 'denying abortion rights to employees' was an ACA violation. Its a specific federal law that was being violated. It had nothing to do with the 'selective incorportion doctrine'. As it was a federal law....you don't need the 14th amendment to extend the Bill of Rights to the Federal Government. The constitution already did that.

You need to actually read the arguments being offered by Bingham and Howard when presenting the 14th amendment to congress. The states were flagrantly violating the rights of recentl released slaves. And they had no recourse as the Bill of Rights didn't extend to the States. The express purpose of the 14th was to do exactly that: extend the bill of rights to the states.

A supreme court ruling Barron v. Baltimore prevented that, explicitly finding that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. The 14th was created to rectify that.

Senator Howard went so far as to read the 1st through 8th amendment.

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate

It was about restraining State power. Not about private busineses.

You're simply mistaken

There is no argument at all that the original point of the 14th amendment was only to prevent state violations of individual rights, and was specifically over ex-slave rights.

But the POINT is that put the federal government in the position of having jurisdiction over individual rights protection, and that is NOT at all limited. It can't be limited. And the SCOTUS has continually expanded its incorporation over time, to now also include all individual rights against abuse by ANYONE.
And it obviously had to be that way. NO ONE has the authority or right to ever abuse or infringe upon any individual rights at all.

The mistake you are making is that you think there has to be specific legislation authorizing federal protection of individual rights before any action could be prosecuted. That is not a correct understanding of law. Rights and protects are infinite. They do not have to be codified and really can't be since they are infinite. When rights not listed specifically are violated, such as rights to privacy, then the violator is still prosecuted under some more general statute.

So can employers punish political expressions?
Absolutely and definitely NOT!
That has always been totally and completely illegal.
You can not possibly have a democratic republic with fair elections if you allow any political extortion.
While legislators are slow to actually write the specific legislation, it is easy to see political extortion is illegal, and it could be prosecuted under dozens of more general existing legislation, and would even violate privacy rights.

Again, just as the SCOTUS used to allow slavery and no longer does, the interpretation of individual rights being supreme is always the goal of any democratic republic, and the fact that trend has been slow is only due to confusion over who should ensure those individual rights best.
Anyone who thinks individuals can legally abuse the inherent rights of others, just does not at all understand what a democratic republic is.

 

[pyetro]

Twitter and Facebook should be able to block anyone and everyone they desire.

However, it reveals their intolerance of opposing viewpoints to do so.

they should be required to apply their rules equally across the board,,

I disagree.

You are not required to use facebook OR Twitter.

It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service.

whats that got to do with equal application of the rules as per their agreement to get their license and protections???

What rules

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]

Totally wrong.
ORIGINALLY, the first amendment was not just restricted to government, but only the federal government, and the states and cities were free to infringe as they wanted to.
But NOT after the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment "incorporated" individual rights as implied by the Bill of Rights, to be protected from ALL infringement, by anyone.

And Twitter most definitely is NOT a "private actor", but a public medium that is supported by the government created Internet. If Twitter wants to be private and make its own rules, then it should go make its own global network and stop using the public internet, because the public internet comes with rules against infringement of individual rights.

Twitter most certainly be capable of being prosecuted for violating individual rights.
Just not sure that applies in this particular case.
That is for the courts to decide.

Nope. The incorporation doctrine selectively extends the Bill of Rights to the States. Not to 'anyone'.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Neither the incorporation doctrine nor the 14th amendment have a thing to do with twitter or other private businesses. They are about extending the limitations on the federal government to the states.

That is wrong.
Look as cases like where companies were denying abortion rights to employees, or fired people who campaigned for certain candidates off work hours.
The 14 amendment no only prohibits state laws from being used to infringe upon individual rights, but also to uphold individual rights when states have failed to pass legislation that would defend individual rights.

If you go back to the original context of the the Reconstruction era, what you are suggesting is that there was no legal recourse to stop the KKK from extorting and murdering Blacks, because the KKK was not an official act by government. And clearly that is wrong. The feds sent in troops to arrest KKK type private groups.

The 'denying abortion rights to employees' was an ACA violation. Its a specific federal law that was being violated. It had nothing to do with the 'selective incorportion doctrine'. As it was a federal law....you don't need the 14th amendment to extend the Bill of Rights to the Federal Government. The constitution already did that.

You need to actually read the arguments being offered by Bingham and Howard when presenting the 14th amendment to congress. The states were flagrantly violating the rights of recentl released slaves. And they had no recourse as the Bill of Rights didn't extend to the States. The express purpose of the 14th was to do exactly that: extend the bill of rights to the states.

A supreme court ruling Barron v. Baltimore prevented that, explicitly finding that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. The 14th was created to rectify that.

Senator Howard went so far as to read the 1st through 8th amendment.

"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of the speech and of their press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house with the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him; and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments....

The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these fundamental guarantees. "

- Senator Howard introducing the 14th amendment to the Senate

It was about restraining State power. Not about private busineses.

You're simply mistaken

There is no argument at all that the original point of the 14th amendment was only to prevent state violations of individual rights, and was specifically over ex-slave rights.

But the POINT is that put the federal government in the position of having jurisdiction over individual rights protection, and that is NOT at all limited. It can't be limited. And the SCOTUS has continually expanded its incorporation over time, to now also include all individual rights against abuse by ANYONE.
And it obviously had to be that way. NO ONE has the authority or right to ever abuse or infringe upon any individual rights at all.

The mistake you are making is that you think there has to be specific legislation authorizing federal protection of individual rights before any action could be prosecuted. That is not a correct understanding of law. Rights and protects are infinite. They do not have to be codified and really can't be since they are infinite. When rights not listed specifically are violated, such as rights to privacy, then the violator is still prosecuted under some more general statute.

So can employers punish political expressions?
Absolutely and definitely NOT!
That has always been totally and completely illegal.
You can not possibly have a democratic republic with fair elections if you allow any political extortion.
While legislators are slow to actually write the specific legislation, it is easy to see political extortion is illegal, and it could be prosecuted under dozens of more general existing legislation, and would even violate privacy rights.

Again, just as the SCOTUS used to allow slavery and no longer does, the interpretation of individual rights being supreme is always the goal of any democratic republic, and the fact that trend has been slow is only due to confusion over who should ensure those individual rights best.
Anyone who thinks individuals can legally abuse the inherent rights of others, just does not at all understand what a democratic republic is.

Show me a Supreme Court ruling punishing a company for doing what Twitter did.

 

[pyetro]

I disagree.
You are not required to use Facebook OR Twitter.
It's not their fault that you didn't create or patronize a competing service

Thats a problem when Apple & Google completely control the ability to compete. They are the gatekeepers protecting their attack dogs.

Google removes Parler from app store, could also be removed from Apple's if it doesn't implement a moderation plan

Google removed Parler for posing a "public safety threat." And Apple reportedly ordered it to implement a moderation plan within the next 24 hours.

www.usatoday.com

Again.......Are you against Capitalism ?
You WANT the government to step in and dictate what businesses can do more than they already do? I DON'T.

If people do not like Facebook or Twitter......LEAVE !!!!!

I've been saying over and over for 5 years now....THE RIGHT NEEDS TO CREATE THEIR OWN SOCIAL MEDIA SITES.

But NO. The Right clings to the leftwing sites like their life depends on it, crying and moaning the whole time. Who's the FOOL ?

These decisions are being made as political persecution. It has NOTHING to do with capitalism and everything to do with discrimination

Maybe Trump should take Twitter to court and lose a gazillion times like he did with the made-up fraud thing.