Why don't people actually get what freedom of speech means?

[pascalfornalz]

these people worsen the discourse for everybody.

No, if twitter bans you, it's not your "denial of free speech". Only the GOVERNMENT BY DEFINITION can deny your freedom of speech. Not private entities.

Until people with low IQs or weak understanding stop voicing retarded views, then the social discourse will improve.

[NamerOfStars]

You really shouldn't be complaining about "people with low IQs or weak understanding stop voicing retarded views" when that's exactly what you're doing. "Freedom of speech" doesn't mean "it only counts when the government censors you". That's what *the 1st Amendment* means; the Constitution doesn't contain the phrase "free speech" or anything close to it. By your logic, establishing a National Church would be fine, since "separation of Church and State" doesn't appear in the Constitution. So would a mass governmental gun grab, since it doesn't say "you can have a gun", either.

And if you're referring to the Berenson lawsuit, when there's hard evidence that the White House told Twitter to shut him down, you DO have the government censoring people.

Troll smarter, not harder.

[bamesjond0069]

I mean if Twitter wants to not be part of the government maybe they should deny all their special exceptions. If a newspaper publishes something they can be sued for it. So if Twitter does they cannot be. This is due to special government powers granted to Twitter and therefore they are not simply a private company and can be violating freedom of speech.

Just as companies like Amazon who take hundreds of millions in tax subsidies should be publicly scrutinized and deemed good for the general public since they take such levels of tax payer money. Whereas "Joe's mart" shouldn't have any public scrutiny since it taxes no tax incentives.

[RomanticRealist]

There is no law saying you can't sue Twitter. You can sue twitter just like you can sue a newspaper or any other business. So "they cannot be sued" is a false statement - you're incorrect. Twitter can be sued. Now, whether or not the courts find your lawsuit constitutionally valid and whether or not they rule in favor of your case is another story.

[bamesjond0069]

@RomanticRealist I mean I can sue you for anything for no reason... I'm talking about legally enforced. Newspapers can be held to account for libel however Twitter is exempt from libel suits in their normal business practices. Why does Twitter have a special law catering to them for seemingly no reason that gives them unfair advantage over traditional media? Does libel on Twitter hurt a party less than libel in a newspaper? And because of this they should be held to higher scrutiny on what's published on their site with the public goods interest superseding their own. If they don't want to be held accountable they should move to relinquish or change the laws to have them on equal footing of all other publishers.

[RomanticRealist]

Newspapers don't function like social media platforms. Anyone can post anything on social media, even before they have time to find it and take it down. Newspapers have full control over everything they publish - literally they spend months working on each piece.

That's like difference between going to a mall with a movie theatre and scrutinizing the owner for screening lots of pro-nazi movies vs. scrutinizing the owner for a racist dude that came in and said something to rile someone up. You can do it, and maybe there's a point to be made, but the mall probably won't be held responsible for the opinions of different groups of people going around and shouting things, especially if they have a formal policy and take action against those people but just can't screen everyone that walks through the door.

The newspaper literally has that power. They screen who contributes what, what they're saying, and make choices to publish pieces with those opinions. See the difference?

[RomanticRealist]

And more to the point that the Asker made - freedom of speech rights are not guaranteed for private institutions. So the point about basic constitutional rights goes beyond any law. You're basically arguing that you disagree with the constitutional scope of freedom of speech, which is fine - but that's not really about laws. Laws are permitted based on the interpretation of what constitutional rights protect. That's like saying you should be able to go to work and start saying lots of racist things at your employers workplace without facing consequences - you can, but your employer also has the right to fire you because it's a private company with interests that are not based on your governmental rights. It's more complicated than that, but basically that's the gist of this specific argument.

[RomanticRealist]

A certain group of people think they know American values best, yet seem to be the least educated about our complex history, laws, and rights. 🤷🏻‍♀️

And don't forget - it's only freedom of speech when they say something. If people collectively rally against what they're saying, they think that's a violation of their rights too. They think the right only goes one way - they don't like the clap back / other people's right to argue back and not like what they have to say lol

[MzAsh]

Yep. Free speech doesn’t protect you from the consequences of saying stupid shit.

[Anonymous]

What do you think lobbying is? Do you seriously think the state wouldn't get it's grimey paws all over this obvious means of controlling the hearts and minds over it's own people?

Also we have footage of Zuckerberg saying that the FBI was involved behind his censorship of sensitive information during the 2020 election like the Hunter Biden laptop story, calling it "Russian disinformation" even though it originated from the New York Post and the establishment media came out saying it was true a year after the election.

[pascalfornalz]

lol. you're funny.
i love how this offends you.
Good. i'm glad it does!
A valid point OFFENDS YOU!
Tell me "you don't know me!!" again, since it makes you look beta, insecure, sensitive and weak, and a like a snowflake since you hate being judged!

[Opinion Owner]

If your point is so valid then tell me where I went wrong.

[pascalfornalz]

Since you;re funny asf. you're deeply wounded by an innocent point i made based on fact,
and you'd get so triggered and hyper somebody is "jugding" you because you have an insecure streak and want to be universally loved.
so yeah - twitter isn't the state. So it's a denial of freedom of speech, by definition. so that bothers you! loool. your church taught you such bullshit.

[Opinion Owner]

The right to free speech is inalienable, meaning no one has the authority to take it away because you have always had it. It is not a gift the state or anyone else gives you. The first amendment is a commandment that the government must respect this but it also makes the implication that it is something the people always had.

So it really doesn't matter how much the state involves themselves in the affairs of how these social media giants conduct themselves. No one has the authority to violate that right.

[Opinion Owner]

Also, I don't hate being judged. It's that you're judging me for things I never said by pulling shit out of your ass. I hope you actually act like this in real life so that you get your teeth knocked out you disingenuous weasel.

[pascalfornalz]

you do hate being judged. you'renot special. i guess your pastor taught youthis, eh?

[Anonymous]

What’s the point of a right being enumerated when it becomes void the moment one uses a private platform?

The same could be said of any right, really.

Why should my rights stop at the doorstep to your business? Why? Because it’s privately owned? Then what’s the goddamn point of government outlining my rights when private enterprise APPARENTLY stands on firmer ground than the very government that business operates under. 🙄

[pascalfornalz]

I'd suggest educate yourelf. Since private property rights exist.

[pascalfornalz]

So by your logic, a person can enter your home, steal all your possessions, that's fine. because private property rights don't exist...
I think your church teaches you retardedness. you'll most likely say "you don't know me!!" and? tell me then, smart fellow, why you're above judgment?

[FilmGuy93]

Well Twitter has kind of been a huge part of the public discourse, so to act like getting banned on Twitter isn’t a big deal is disingenuous.

[pascalfornalz]

they have a right to ban people. Just as a restaurant holds the right to ban people.

[FilmGuy93]

Of course, but that doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to be banned from the platform.

[pascalfornalz]

but it's not a violation of free speech. does your church tell you this alternate reality?
You're so easy to wind. the fact a stranger isn't wholly warm to you triggers you deeply, doesn't it?

[FilmGuy93]

No? lmao What are you talking about? All I said was that getting banned on Twitter is a big deal, not that it's a violation of free speech. I just don't think we should be totally dismissive of people who feel like they're being suppressed because of the bans.

[pascalfornalz]

cos you do hate strangers judging you. you're not special. i doubt you're that smart to convey why you are.

[BTCMoon]

The issue is that we have a social media oligarchy that is incentived to push a particular agenda. They pay out politicians. Politicians make laws in their favor. It's a relationship.

[joeldalton]

When the FBI, Biden administration, and CDC influence twitter to ban people, that’s an absolute violation of the 1st amendment. You tried, though.

[pascalfornalz]

i'm not American, so i didn't try anything. and trying isn't really listening to trump-ite conspiracy theories. no wonder he duped millions of you to vote for him.

[joeldalton]

So you’re not American and ignorant. These aren't “conspiracy theories” these are stated facts. Alex Berenson has the actual communications from the White House to twitter as evidence in his lawsuit. Mark Zuckerberg admitted the FBI influenced him to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story on Facebook. The CDC admitted they told Twitter what information to censor.

But, yeah. You tried again. Maybe don’t be an ignorant twat next time?

[pascalfornalz]

i don't care about your dumbfuck country, nor should i. stop asuming i should. lol.
just hope your orange boy isn't locked up in jail or sued heavily for stealing classified secrets.

[pascalfornalz]

You must also get a hardon off citing the USA, when I didn't even mention it;
I guess you're also ignornat if somebdoy cites what Canada or Italy are doing - when you're probably not from either country and don't give a shit. lol.

[joeldalton]

You do care you stupid ass. Because you listed "United States" as your country on your account. You must be too embarrassed to be truthful.

[pascalfornalz]

I'm not American. and I'm not a pussy like you who gets offended when strangers judge me hahah. tell me why you cannot be judged. but then you're so christian you beat people up who "judge you" loolol. i thought Jesus taught humility.

[pascalfornalz]

just your personality is easy to work over and work around. very sensitive and with unehalthy expectations of others.

[pascalfornalz]

because you push your us bullshit on an international forum.
and you get annoyed and highly triggered at people who say shit you do't like, even if it within the forum spec. cos your church taught you to hav a massive ego, hence why you get triggered when people "judge you". my god, what a pussy.
keep your retard 1st amendment.

[msc545]

It would help if people were taught these things in school.

[pascalfornalz]

But you Americans cannot read books or self-educate. like many people do.

[msc545]

I'm a Ph. D. Neuropsychologist - do you think I can read or self-educate, asshole?

[Jouth]

no the government by definition CANNOT deny your free speech. That's what make free.

[pascalfornalz]

Or learn some definitions, bruh.

[Jouth]

prove it

[pascalfornalz]

what's to prove? that you hate strangers judging you, since your pastor told you that?
You just echoed my point, but apparently you're oh so educated, learned, but have shit reading comprehension.
All what your pastor taught you.

[pascalfornalz]

You get your bullish and closed-minded persona from your pastor lol.

[jimmy2]

It's I can say what I want with out cops busting my ass and putting me in prison

[Calenderagressive]

Freedom of speech is a lie

[pascalfornalz]

yes, and? I'm amused this point offends you. But you believe everything your pastor tells you.

[Calenderagressive]

Huh?
I ain't realigous...

[Calenderagressive]

And it doesn't offend me

[Calenderagressive]

Also technically twitter can deny you all they want it's them using they're freedom

[pascalfornalz]

Yes, since it's not technically freedom of speech. but you're lying, since you believe everything your pastor tells you.