Regardless of whether someone is entitled to free speech, is a private company bound to the constitutional protection?
My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can. The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a write.
> The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a write
I generally agree with your point about private companies and the 1A.
However, the NYT and Twitter/X are fundamentally different in that the NYT is not a user platform but rather a media company who decides what it wants to publish--meaning that is it's stated goal. Twitter/X stated goal is to provide a platform for users to publish whatever they want to say. Now, Twitter/X can have a policy saying "here's a platform where you can say whatever you want except for X, Y and Z" and that's fine. Just like HN has policies. As long as it's clear and transparent as to what they are allowing or disallowing, then users are informed enough to know what they're going to get when they log on to X. Just like I know what I'm going to get if I visit Fox News.
Prior to Elon, Twitter's policies were stricter and so there was a lot less "hate speech" (for lack of a better term). Those guardrails are gone, since for one Elon fired the whole moderation team, and also because of Elon's own immature posts setting the example, it's devolved into a reddit-style cesspool so I decided not to go there anymore.
Banning links to Signal would be no big deal if Elon hadn't loudly proclaimed himself as the "defender of free speech" and demonized the "censorship" of Twitter.
We pretty much agree here. The contradiction of claiming free speech while doing things like banning Signal links is frustrating for sure.
Maybe I'm just getting old, but I've gotten too cynical to believe any company or rich individual making a business deal to actually tell the truth - its all marketing at that point.
> I've gotten too cynical to believe any company or rich individual making a business deal to actually tell the truth - its all marketing at that point
> My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can.
Then you have no free speech. I can just refuse you internet access, or not sell ink and paper to you…
So my take is that no, it should not be allowed to private companies to censor arbitrarily. And of course an "algorithm" that sorts stuff in any other way than chronologically is censorship. The feed should just show chronological ordered stuff of followed accounts. No more and no less.
Then you do not have free speech, since this is what the rules of free speech are.
They are about ensuring that the government doesnt use its unique powers of force to ensure that certain ideas are not shared or discussed.
What the current government is doing, with Fox + Twitter, is fundamentally the opposite of free speech. They have the power to say something, then pretend it is true, and act on it.
Neither do you, unless you redefined it to be the super narrow description that you gave. So you can freely be censored but keep believing you have freedom.
You're the poster child of how europeans imagine usa citizens.
Governments can't censor what their citizens say. That's the only protection covered in the US constitution.
Private citizens and companies can censor. Twitter can have rules of conduct or terms of use, for example, and you have to play by their rules when posting on their service. The government isn't involved at all (twitter files not withstanding).
I guess.. it must be shocking to you? Seemingly absurd perhaps.
You can't say what you want in a shopping mall. They can decide who gets to stay in their premises, and for whatever reason they can eject you.
All the free speech cases, have been about government stopping speech. Whether its about deceny laws, or sedition - its always been the government vs a person / corporation.
So yeah - these have been the rights you lived under for all your life. Its never changed.
That is the operating definition of free speech that has worked in America since I started working in this space.
Oh. I come from and am In a country with much stricter Free Speech laws.
I think all of them are pretty crap for today’s environment.
But yes - the operating definition of Free speech, the one enforceable in courts, the one you have lived under, is the one I outlined.
Namely - no government over reach in speech. Not that people can’t do what they want as private individuals, and now corporations.
So you can in theory, have a corporation buy up all the local news channels, and then have them share one kind of point of view. It’s perfectly free speech.
You could stream porn, and the courts would side by you for your right to free speech.
This doesn’t mean you wont get sued for piracy, or actually earn money through your project - you still need a service people want.
I’m dead serious, you can check if you like - but these are the rules you live under even right now.
How you don't understand that the point of free speech is the ability to be heard by others, and if you're shadow-banned you're effectively just writing a private diary?
I mean, ok you have this right. What do you think was the INTENTION of this right? Do you think they intended for people to freely mumble to themselves or to tell their ideas to others?
Freedom of Speech goes hand in hand with Freedom of Association. You are free to speak and spread your ideas, you are not free to compel others to help you to do so and you are not entitled to an audience.
I don’t have to let you stand on my porch to speak anymore than Instagram has to allow you to post things or Costco has to allow you to hold lectures in the food court.
If you sell paper to anyone BUT me, or let anyone who pays a fee stand on your porch and talk for 10 minutes except me, yes that should count as a felony.
exactly. Once we stop treating TwiX like a public good but rather like the private website of a a gaming cheater with a lot of guests, things would be more obvious, wouldn't it?
Regardless of whether someone is entitled to free speech, is a private company bound to the constitutional protection?
My understanding has always been that its specifically the government that can't censor me, a private company or citizen can. The NY Times isn't required to write an article I submit to them for example, that's no different than Twitter deciding not to keep a post a write.