Strawman argument. We are talking about a company not an individual. And yeah - if you write a book and I want to put something in it you can say no and I have no right to put my speech in that book. It is your book. Same with Twitter - it is their company and their rules.
Just like here - mods can ban you or remove comments.
It isn't a straw man, corporations get to enjoy benefits of person hood under the law until the law says that they can not do what they want. If I do not hold the right to hinder your free speech then you do not have the right to hinder mine, arbitrary rules to "maintain order" are not law and are not enforceable under the law and have been illegally upheld as law by corporations with the aid of the government for far too long.
Mods can remove what they want, that isn't the argument though. It isn't legal to remove unless it infringes on other peoples rights. The hope is that no one would ever argue it correctly in court but it is not legal just because they say it is and the 14th amendment dun fucked em good!
That's kind of the point of section 230 - it protects large public forums from being sued or arrested from something a user posted. It means they are not publishers. If they however edit or censor posts they are publishers and should not be protected by 230. A book (the example I used was if the other published a book, not me) is by definition published, so I'm not sure what you are actually getting at.
I get what you are saying technically. Its like they be protection but still edit or censor ie by tags of misinformation. You say if but they are/were.
Can I as a person censor your speech or hinder your speech?
14th about to come in clutch!
Strawman argument. We are talking about a company not an individual. And yeah - if you write a book and I want to put something in it you can say no and I have no right to put my speech in that book. It is your book. Same with Twitter - it is their company and their rules.
Just like here - mods can ban you or remove comments.
It isn't a straw man, corporations get to enjoy benefits of person hood under the law until the law says that they can not do what they want. If I do not hold the right to hinder your free speech then you do not have the right to hinder mine, arbitrary rules to "maintain order" are not law and are not enforceable under the law and have been illegally upheld as law by corporations with the aid of the government for far too long.
Mods can remove what they want, that isn't the argument though. It isn't legal to remove unless it infringes on other peoples rights. The hope is that no one would ever argue it correctly in court but it is not legal just because they say it is and the 14th amendment dun fucked em good!
they are benefiting from protections. your book is not.
That's kind of the point of section 230 - it protects large public forums from being sued or arrested from something a user posted. It means they are not publishers. If they however edit or censor posts they are publishers and should not be protected by 230. A book (the example I used was if the other published a book, not me) is by definition published, so I'm not sure what you are actually getting at.
I get what you are saying technically. Its like they be protection but still edit or censor ie by tags of misinformation. You say if but they are/were.