This narrow view is, again, disappointing.
These are real issues of free speech. Real questions about how we as a society prevent dialogue that might offend the powerful from being chilled. And it's all brushed aside. Why? I have guesses. Shoot, libel lawsuits are very, very much threats to free speech.
Explaining that "Restricting speech on those platforms to me is a complete violation of free speech rights" is not very meaningful. You have no right to speak on Twitter. None. At all. You have an allowance from the people who run it, as it is a private platform. That is how this works. The same way the managers of this board could throw us off if they saw fit (they can also delete our posts, when they so choose). And a powerful person thrown of twitter or Facebook, they have many, many avenues to speech. They're free to start competitors, join already existing competitors.
If a social media platform want to throw someone off, that's an actual exercise of a first amendment right, the freedom of association. And what so many want seems to be that for exercising that first amendment right, the owners should be deprived of property.
I suppose if we think about speech in the most narrow ways, with out feelings being the guide, we'll land at the same place. We'll fire off our political takes, wrap them in the mantle of "free speech" because it makes us feel righteous, and work to erode the meaning of this bedrock of our great country.
(And if Elon starts banning his critics, I'll be in the same corner. He'd 100 percent have the right to do it, and he'd be showing his words about free speech were simply empty)
You have a right to say or write pretty much whatever you like. I believe that 1000000% with all my being. You also have to take the consequences that come with what you say and write however. I can talk shit about my boss or my company I work for- and then my boss can absolutely fire me. Canceling someone's order for talking bad about your company is stupid- but products do not equal speech. Money does not equal speech. Speech = speech.
And libel law suites are absolutely a necessity. People cannot be allowed to knowingly defame and defraud willy nilly. Can rich guys plays fast and loose and abuse those type of law suites to try and bully and intimidate people a lot less rich then them? Of course they can. But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of valid cases where libel suites are necessary.
Free speech is nearly absolute- but it does have limits. You can't threaten someone with violence. You can't defraud and defame someone.
Obviously you cannot publish illegal disgusting things like child pornography. But outside of that- pretty much everything else is fair game.
You're right- no one has free speech rights on platforms like Twitter or Facebook right now. They are private companies. But my
opinion is that they should be reclassified as public utilities- almost like the telephone- and that everyone should have protected free speech rights- by law- on these platforms. These platforms have become the de facto public square/town hall- and free and open dialogue should be protected on them.
Facebook and Twitter have exemptions by law- they are shielded from liability by law- for whatever a user on their platform writes or shares. If they are to enjoy this special right- then there really is not a single valid god damn reason for them to go on their insane censorship campaigns. Ban/censor people that break the law on the platforms- death threats, specific acts of violence, etc., etc.. Leave everyone and everything else the hell alone.
