Elon's biggest problem @ Twitter - he's not funny at tweeting

I'm just a simple caveman...

But let's use some logic.

What were the consequences leveraged at Twitter had they not banned any of the accounts you feel were banned because of government instruction?

Why wouldn't the government continue to make those demands under the same threat of the same consequences?

Also the majority of government requests to remove or ban tweets and accounts were from India, Pakistan, and Russia.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/...-content-journalists-news-outlets-2021-07-14/

 

I'm only referring to US constitutional law here (which I studied, although I'm German).

 

Excellent. So since you studied constitutional law you are aware of what The Constitution says.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

It wasn't a first amendment issue.

 

You can continue to repeat your uninformed opinion. I quoted legal experts - you are stating your (wrong) opinion.

 

You don't think there are legal experts that disagree?

“It may be unwise to exclude some people from those platforms,” said attorney and medial law professor at Syracuse’s Newhouse School of Public Communications Nina Brown. “The first amendment allows Twitter to decide how it wants to speak.”
https://www.local10.com/news/local/...a-bans-do-not-violate-first-amendment-rights/


legal experts say that’s a fundamental misrepresentation of the U.S. Constitution.

Everyone learned it in grade school, but it’s worth remembering what the First Amendment actually says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The answer is actually in the very first word of the First Amendment.

These are the rules for Congress, for our government, which Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and all other social media platforms are not.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/local...st-amendment-rights-a-legal-expert-weighs-in/

First Amendment protections against government censorship do not apply if Twitter “decides it is not going to participate in disseminating someone else’s message,” said Jeremy Mishkin, a lawyer with Montgomery McCracken in Philadelphia who practices First Amendment law. A newspaper, for instance, is not required to publish a politician’s news release, Mishkin said.
https://www.inquirer.com/news/twitter-bans-trump-free-speech-first-amendment-20210109.html

My questions still haven't been answered.

What were the consequences leveraged at Twitter had they not banned any of the accounts you feel were banned because of government instruction?

Why wouldn't the government continue to make those demands under the same threat of the same consequences?

 

2 lawyers, 3 opinions

Of course there are lawyers who disagree - with anything. But I am the best.

 

still equals 2 assholes

 

So your "best" opinion is that somehow the government was able to dictate and mandate the private company to suspend accounts before, but now for some reason they can't do that?

Do you have any explanation?

 

this one's pretty funny

 

dude's the best poster on the interwebs

 

The original tweet. The response.

 

related

 

Damn Macbeth, you are a lawyer now too. Go read the first amendment again - It’s pretty short.

 

Don’t give him any ideas.

 

Now that’s a name I haven’t seen in a while.