I am not allowed to violate the constitutional rights of my neighbor
I disagree. The constitution, legally speaking, only applies to the government(s). It does not apply directly to you. There may be other laws you are violating, which are applicable to you, if you do something that happens to violate your neighbor's constitutional rights, but the violation is not because you're violating their constitutional rights. There are instances where you can violate their constitutional rights just the same as a corporation can.
For example, if your neighbor enters your property and says something derogatory about your girlfriend. You are legally allowed to kick them out of your property and, if they don't oblige, have them trespassed. If the government did the same thing (i.e. if a person walked into a public park and said something derogatory about the government, so the government had them trespassed), that would be illegal.
The same goes for Twitter.
It's not about violating the Constitution. It's about them doing something that is morally wrong, and should be illegal. Maybe it shouldn't be directly illegal, as that is potentially a violation of the company's rights to do what they want with their property. This is why the section 230 solution is so great. It doesn't make censorship directly illegal, but it means the company is liable for illegal content posted if they choose to censor.
And it makes sense in the spirit of the law. Nowadays, a reasonable person could conclude that if something is posted on Facebook without a fact check banner or being removed, and is a particularly "spicy" take where you'd expect Facebook to have fact checked or removed it, that Facebook had tried to fact check it and came up empty, so it stayed. Nowadays, a reasonable person could conclude that a spicy post on Facebook that doesn't have a fact check banner is verified by Facebook. That's how prominently they censor. So they should be held partially liable if something is, for example, libelous.
So I can violate my neighbors constitutional rights?
In the spirit of the law a corporation is a person and they do not get any more rights than I do as a person. I am not allowed to silence my neighbor.... If my neighbor does something illegal, violates my constitutional rights, I have legal recourse. That person might be removed for a time even. Why is that any different for a corporation? Why is it everywhere I look everyone but the common man has all these extra privileges that I am not afforded? The Law was written for the common man, so that he might stay himself in a world that was all about incorporation and conformity.
So I can violate my neighbors constitutional rights?
Yes.
Did you not read my comment?
If my neighbor does something illegal, violates my constitutional rights, I have legal recourse.
You have legal recourse if what they did was illegal, not because it violated your constitutional rights. Read my example above for an instance of when something may be legal, but still a violation of constitutional rights, but is still allowed.
I disagree. The constitution, legally speaking, only applies to the government(s). It does not apply directly to you. There may be other laws you are violating, which are applicable to you, if you do something that happens to violate your neighbor's constitutional rights, but the violation is not because you're violating their constitutional rights. There are instances where you can violate their constitutional rights just the same as a corporation can.
For example, if your neighbor enters your property and says something derogatory about your girlfriend. You are legally allowed to kick them out of your property and, if they don't oblige, have them trespassed. If the government did the same thing (i.e. if a person walked into a public park and said something derogatory about the government, so the government had them trespassed), that would be illegal.
The same goes for Twitter.
It's not about violating the Constitution. It's about them doing something that is morally wrong, and should be illegal. Maybe it shouldn't be directly illegal, as that is potentially a violation of the company's rights to do what they want with their property. This is why the section 230 solution is so great. It doesn't make censorship directly illegal, but it means the company is liable for illegal content posted if they choose to censor.
And it makes sense in the spirit of the law. Nowadays, a reasonable person could conclude that if something is posted on Facebook without a fact check banner or being removed, and is a particularly "spicy" take where you'd expect Facebook to have fact checked or removed it, that Facebook had tried to fact check it and came up empty, so it stayed. Nowadays, a reasonable person could conclude that a spicy post on Facebook that doesn't have a fact check banner is verified by Facebook. That's how prominently they censor. So they should be held partially liable if something is, for example, libelous.
So I can violate my neighbors constitutional rights?
In the spirit of the law a corporation is a person and they do not get any more rights than I do as a person. I am not allowed to silence my neighbor.... If my neighbor does something illegal, violates my constitutional rights, I have legal recourse. That person might be removed for a time even. Why is that any different for a corporation? Why is it everywhere I look everyone but the common man has all these extra privileges that I am not afforded? The Law was written for the common man, so that he might stay himself in a world that was all about incorporation and conformity.
Yes.
Did you not read my comment?
You have legal recourse if what they did was illegal, not because it violated your constitutional rights. Read my example above for an instance of when something may be legal, but still a violation of constitutional rights, but is still allowed.