The way parties work is characteristic of the blurry lines between the public and private sectors within our system. The DNC and RNC are themselves private, but they get members in both elected and appointed government positions.
While serving as the head of the DNC, Debbie "Wash Yo Ass Schultz" is a private citizen. Is it a 1A violation if she asks Twitter to censor something? What if she does it at the request of Dems in the government? If she does it to benefit Dems in government, does it matter if she were asked or not? Does her reasoning matter at all given the nature of political parties? It is this sort of blurriness that French is weaseling around.
Another problem is if Twitter censors without involving the DNC. Their shared worldview means they will do so in many cases even if not told. This highlights a hole in our current free speech protections. They aren't good at protecting from censorship as a result of privatizing the public square.
They aren't good at protecting from censorship as a result of privatizing the public square.
The public square can't be private. This is not an issue of there being 'fuzziness', this shit was understood over a century ago regarding Company Towns. It's just the bureaucrats within the state pretending to be retarded on purpose. It's the same shit they play with definitions regarding all old laws that stand in their way. "a well regulated militia means that only the government can own weapons!" style.
A state actor is an intentionally broad term. It's why being forced by your school to scan your room visually with a camera was considered a violation of your rights regarding unreasonable search and seizure. The test proctor for your school is a state actor.
The political party activists, acting in the interests of members of the state are state actors. In fact, by complying with these voluntary requests by government bureaucrats Twitter is operating as a state actor. It's not just that Twitter interfered in the election it's that the government did. That's been well established by over 100 years of legal precedent that the state is pretending never happened and was ill defined.
Two words that never get spoken anymore by anyone on the Left, and their absence has been loudly noted: "chilling effect".
It means that even behaviors by the state that aren't censorious, but could promote self-censorship, are violations of the 1st Amendment. They know good and god damned well that it exists, and they are pretending to have never heard of it.
And no, Twitter shouldn't be the public square, but like with the Company Towns, the government sought to make it so.
No, the first amendment protects from viewpoint discrimination by the state. The power of viewpoint discrimination is far too likely to abuse for it to be only wielded against incompatible ideologies.
The way parties work is characteristic of the blurry lines between the public and private sectors within our system. The DNC and RNC are themselves private, but they get members in both elected and appointed government positions.
While serving as the head of the DNC, Debbie "Wash Yo Ass Schultz" is a private citizen. Is it a 1A violation if she asks Twitter to censor something? What if she does it at the request of Dems in the government? If she does it to benefit Dems in government, does it matter if she were asked or not? Does her reasoning matter at all given the nature of political parties? It is this sort of blurriness that French is weaseling around.
Another problem is if Twitter censors without involving the DNC. Their shared worldview means they will do so in many cases even if not told. This highlights a hole in our current free speech protections. They aren't good at protecting from censorship as a result of privatizing the public square.
The public square can't be private. This is not an issue of there being 'fuzziness', this shit was understood over a century ago regarding Company Towns. It's just the bureaucrats within the state pretending to be retarded on purpose. It's the same shit they play with definitions regarding all old laws that stand in their way. "a well regulated militia means that only the government can own weapons!" style.
A state actor is an intentionally broad term. It's why being forced by your school to scan your room visually with a camera was considered a violation of your rights regarding unreasonable search and seizure. The test proctor for your school is a state actor.
The political party activists, acting in the interests of members of the state are state actors. In fact, by complying with these voluntary requests by government bureaucrats Twitter is operating as a state actor. It's not just that Twitter interfered in the election it's that the government did. That's been well established by over 100 years of legal precedent that the state is pretending never happened and was ill defined.
Two words that never get spoken anymore by anyone on the Left, and their absence has been loudly noted: "chilling effect".
It means that even behaviors by the state that aren't censorious, but could promote self-censorship, are violations of the 1st Amendment. They know good and god damned well that it exists, and they are pretending to have never heard of it.
Is Twitter the public square? Should it be?
Do you think the state should not be allowed to declare beliefs such as White supremacy to be terrorist threats?
And no, Twitter shouldn't be the public square, but like with the Company Towns, the government sought to make it so.
No, the first amendment protects from viewpoint discrimination by the state. The power of viewpoint discrimination is far too likely to abuse for it to be only wielded against incompatible ideologies.
Which would then mean they could censor whatever they want, no?
I'm not sure what you mean here.
If they do it? Legal, but should be subject to campaign financing laws as an in-kind contribution of some astronomical value.
Of course, since campaign financing laws only appear to be applied one-way, that's not going to work either.