What is the difference between an outside entity asking for information to be removed and the CEO of the company asking for information to be removed? It is a violation, this comment is only plausible under the section 230 protections granted to internet companies allowing them to not be considered publishers but instead as hosts for content. So the government allowed these internet companies to remove what they wanted when they wanted for whatever reason that they wanted making it the perfect vessel to "legally" (it isn't) sensor speech online. The whole thing is unconstitutional and elon trying to use that stinks to high heaven.
Bingo, it also cannot allow corporations to violate the Constitution. This is going to get some kind of fun I feel. So many layers of corruption. As if they were not already in hot water for violating their oaths.
Corporations can censor speech if they want to. Period. Government can't force corporations to censor speech - that violates the 1st amendment. Section 230 doesn't require Corporations to allow free speech - it protects them from prosecution for something someone else posts on their platform. Corporations are not subject to the 1st because they are not Congress (or the Government).
For those that still don't understand that the 1st amendment is there to stop the government from infringing on our rights (and not corporations) here is the text of the 1st amendment:
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.
Twitter acting by itself to suppress free speech is not a 1st amendment violation, but it is still wrong.
This is what people don't get. It's not always about what is legal or not. It's also about what's right or wrong.
What is the difference between an outside entity asking for information to be removed and the CEO of the company asking for information to be removed? It is a violation, this comment is only plausible under the section 230 protections granted to internet companies allowing them to not be considered publishers but instead as hosts for content. So the government allowed these internet companies to remove what they wanted when they wanted for whatever reason that they wanted making it the perfect vessel to "legally" (it isn't) sensor speech online. The whole thing is unconstitutional and elon trying to use that stinks to high heaven.
The government cannot violate the Constitution by proxy.
Bingo, it also cannot allow corporations to violate the Constitution. This is going to get some kind of fun I feel. So many layers of corruption. As if they were not already in hot water for violating their oaths.
Corporations can censor speech if they want to. Period. Government can't force corporations to censor speech - that violates the 1st amendment. Section 230 doesn't require Corporations to allow free speech - it protects them from prosecution for something someone else posts on their platform. Corporations are not subject to the 1st because they are not Congress (or the Government).
For those that still don't understand that the 1st amendment is there to stop the government from infringing on our rights (and not corporations) here is the text of the 1st amendment: