Come, come, my good sir! US citizens know that censorship on private social media platforms is NOT a First Amendment issue! While it may be censorship of a sort, it's not done by the US government, and therefor is allowable. This is middle school civics in the USA, old boy! There's nothing, nothing, in the US constitution that says anyone else must pay to promulgate your opinions. Freedom of speech is freedom of government suppression in the USA. But like almost everything else in the USA, it's up to you to pay for it.

▲

Erem 17 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It is actually done by the government too. Case in point the Tennessee man who was arrested and jailed for a month. Why? for social media posts critical of Charlie Kirk

	▲	LocalH 12 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's even worse, IMO. That guy was replying on a thread about Charlie Kirk, but he was critical of Trump, and expressed that criticism with a direct quote from Trump.
	▲	bofadeez 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		That's why the ACLU used to have principles and support extremist groups' right to speech. If they come for them, they'll come for you next. How can you mediate the boundaries of conversation? Every individual must be allowed to peacefully express their opinion. Anyone being attacked for doing so will get support of any classical liberal still around. Call them names if you want, it doesn't work anymore.

▲

terminalshort a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is a 1A issue when they are censoring due to government pressure

▲

bediger4000 a day ago | parent [-]

Not what I'm arguing, I agree with you. Nobody is compelled to carry your speech, with a rare "common carrier" exception. Which social media is not.

You've got me thinking. I'm sure there's government pressure on social media to not carry certain posts, or allow certain human access. That's a pretty clear 1st Amendment violation. But it shades off. What about say, NSA using it's total information awareness feed of the entire internet to let HN know when a terms-of-service violation happened. Is that OK? What about if the NSA selectively notifies Truth Social of TOS violations? What if the NSA sends an official lawyer around to Facebook to get them to modify TOS a particular way? What if the DoJ sends someone to Paul, Weiss to get them to send someone else around (pro bono!) to hint that modifying TOS a particular way would be beneficial to Bluesky? What if Zuckerberg calls up Trump and asks him how he'd like TOS to read? I'm not sure where the line is.

	▲	anonymouskimmer 20 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I'm not sure where the line is. The line is always where a criminal violation seems likely to occur, including criminal negligence. Otherwise the government has no business butting in, unless subpoenaed as a witness by a court in a civil matter. Edit: I guess the government also has a right to respond if it, or its policies, are a target of criticism or lies. But it should do this in the court of public opinion, or in an actual court if said speech breaches criminal law or a civil tort. Though in the latter cases it would be held to the highest standard. It has no right to otherwise shut down anyone's speech regardless of where it occurs.
	▲	terminalshort 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> What about say, NSA using it's total information awareness feed of the entire internet to let HN know when a terms-of-service violation happened. Is that OK? I don't think so. That's pretty weird that a government agency spending taxpayer money to assist with moderation on a private company's website.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]