(Replying to PARENT post)

It’s weird to repeatedly see the argument that a corporation’s moderation of human individual’s speech is itself a form of protected speech, from a group of people who until recently mostly thought corporate speech wasn’t even broad enough to cover a corporation’s production and distribution of its own message in a political movie.

Like I think “corporations are people too, my friend” but corporate moderation as a form of protects speech or association takes Citizens United to the next level.

👤rayiner🕑3y🔼0🗨️0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Nobody so far has refuted this weak analysis better than David French did.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-...

First Amendment lawyers seem mostly† to be dunking on the idea that there is anything controversial about the protection Twitter enjoys.

† maybe "entirely" is the right word here

👤tptacek🕑3y🔼0🗨️0

(Replying to PARENT post)

When I am weaker than you I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.
👤xyzzyz🕑3y🔼0🗨️0

(Replying to PARENT post)

There used to be a nice delineation between regulation of commercial and non-commercial activities, with the press, often straddling the divide, enjoying specialized treatment. But political, legal, and technological developments seem to have all conspired to make hash of that old, basic dichotomy.

It's hard to call out hypocrisy without first establishing some coherent principles. I'm not sure what those might be for any of the major political or legal factions. For example, how do we categorize and differentiate health care relationships, for when the government might want to dictate which pamphlets a provider must make available in their waiting rooms or which warnings must be placed on a label. It's roughly similar to the situation with social media companies in the sense of commercial entities mediating private relations, but I suspect a substantial number would find themselves on the opposite side of any hard line drawing.

👤wahern🕑3y🔼0🗨️0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Should media companies be required to provide a platform for government leaders to broadcast their messages?

To me this is basic 1st amendment stuff. We've gone pretty far down the road to authoritarianism when people think we need to protect the leader of the government's ability to force media companies to carry his messages.

👤jmull🕑3y🔼0🗨️0

(Replying to PARENT post)

If Paul Clement had kept his mouth shut in oral arguments we might not be here. You of all people here certainly know that.
👤selimthegrim🕑3y🔼0🗨️0