Twitter and The 1st Amendment

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The second info dump from Twitter came out Thursday about 7PM. Most everyone knew they were censoring content and had a heavy bias toward liberal cultural views and politics. However, it's now more evident they were conspiring with government operatives to influence things like covid policies and the 2020 presidential election. These would be 1st Amendment violations of the highest level. This should get very interesting in the coming days and weeks.

 

coalminer

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
It doesn't matter who had the majority in the recent past. Republicans will have the House majority next month.
Barely, but what could they do? A private company is free to censor whatever they desire, even if it was requested by someone in the government.

By the way, Im still waiting for what is soooooo bad on Hunters laptop......
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Remember the first batch of Twitter files that were recently dumped?

"He added that Weiss discovered “that the person in charge of releasing the files was someone named Jim.
“When she called to ask ‘Jim’s’ last name, the answer came back: ‘Jim Baker.’”


 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Barely, but what could they do? A private company is free to censor whatever they desire, even if it was requested by someone in the government.
Wrong. If the government colludes with a company like Twitter to suppress or censor free speech it's a violation of the 1st Amendment. Secondly, in 2018 Twitter executives including Jack Dorsey testified before Congress that they did not engage in shadowbanning. People go to prison for lying to Congress.
By the way, Im still waiting for what is soooooo bad on Hunters laptop......
For your reading pleasure and enlightenment. There are hundreds of other sources on this topic. (Bold emphasis mine)

"The 634-page report (plus 2,020 footnotes) lists six alleged crimes committed by Joe Biden – including tax evasion and violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) – alongside 459 crimes it alleges were committed by Hunter, including illegal foreign lobbying and money laundering."

 

coalminer

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Wrong. If the government colludes with a company like Twitter to suppress or censor free speech it's a violation of the 1st Amendment. Secondly, in 2018 Twitter executives including Jack Dorsey testified before Congress that they did not engage in shadowbanning. People go to prison for lying to Congress.

For your reading pleasure and enlightenment. There are hundreds of other sources on this topic. (Bold emphasis mine)

"The 634-page report (plus 2,020 footnotes) lists six alleged crimes committed by Joe Biden – including tax evasion and violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) – alongside 459 crimes it alleges were committed by Hunter, including illegal foreign lobbying and money laundering."

One of these days when I have some free time I will go through the report, just out of curiosity.

So I guess Trump and Biden do have something in common, tax evasion?????
 

coalminer

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
What does his religion got to do with it?
Just a joke, one of the places I worked the building was owned by a Jewish businessman, he demanded we use his contractors if we do anything to the building, we found out later its because he got a cut of the bill. Apparently that is the norm in the Jewish business world from what I have been told. A couple of years before I left there, we had a new supervisor who told him he would use whoever he wanted from now on, and the owner wasnt happy, but what could he do.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Well, you can tell he is not Jewish, if so it would be 15% for the big guy.......

Just a joke, one of the places I worked the building was owned by a Jewish businessman, he demanded we use his contractors if we do anything to the building, we found out later its because he got a cut of the bill. Apparently that is the norm in the Jewish business world from what I have been told. A couple of years before I left there, we had a new supervisor who told him he would use whoever he wanted from now on, and the owner wasnt happy, but what could he do.
Be very careful with what you are posting.....
This could be considered as prejudice ......
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
  • Haha
Reactions: RLENT

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
These would be 1st Amendment violations of the highest level.
Let's be sure to properly understand the First Amendment itself before calling something a First Amendment violation.

I'm not a lawyer or constitutional scholar and I know of none who participate here on EO. So, being careful to properly understand the First Amendment, I did a little Googling and learned the First Amendment itself is part of the US Constitution. More specifically, it is an amendment to the Constitution (actually the first of several amendments, thus the name First Amendment). It was was adopted in 1791.

The First Amendment says this:

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.

There are numerous explanations online telling readers what the First Amendment means. Two are shared below.

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights." (Wikipedia)

"The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government." (Legal Information Institute)

Twitter, Truth Social, Facebook, Reddit, Instagram and other social media entities are not the government, the press, a church. Social media entities, as they exist today, are businesses run for profit. Some are publicly held, meaning their shares trade on stock exchanges, but they are not public entities like city hall is a public entity owned by the people of that city. As long as they obey the law, social media companies are free to operate any way they choose for any purpose they choose.

While a host of laws apply to businesses of all kinds, I know of no constitutional provision or any law that prevents a social media entity from kicking Trump or any other person off its site.

When an entity gets big like Twitter or Facebook, all sorts of people proclaim what they think that entity's rules should be. But it remains a fundamental fact that social media sites are free to make their site-participation rules, and they are free to grant or deny participation, and to regulate the nature of that participation as they please ... as long as they follow the laws that apply to those businesses.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RLENT and coalminer
Top